beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,00 and by a fine of KRW 7,00,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence (for the defendant A, 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 10 million won of fine) sentenced by the court below to the defendants is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. The instant crime was committed by the faculty members of the I University by manipulating the major reference index for the selection of the government subsidy universities, such as the enrollment rate and employment rate, in a planned and organized manner. As such, there is a high possibility of criticism in the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes, and there is a need to strictly punish the taxpayers as a crime causing damage to the entire citizens of the Republic of Korea due to the poor state’s financial standing. In addition, the result of the instant crime was also significant due to the National Subsidy granted by the aforementioned unlawful method up to 2.2 billion won.
However, the Defendants were led to confessions and reflects of all the instant crimes; the president, who actually exercises the authority at I University, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months at the first instance court on the basis of a criminal offense committed by the Defendants and the Defendants; and the judgment became final and conclusive at the appellate court after having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months. There are circumstances to consider that the Defendants resulted in the instant crime due to the unilateral instruction, pressure, etc. of the above president; the subsidies received from the State from the instant crime was deposited in full; the Defendant was not sentenced to a fine; the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment; the Defendants were in good faith with professors; the Defendants were in office for a considerable period; the status within I University; the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the instant crime; the degree of punishment of other professors who participated in the instant crime; and the age, age, character, and conduct of the Defendants.