2012No2425 Interference with business

n00 (00000 - 00000)

Seoul Residence

Seoul basic domicile

Defendant

Long-term seats (prosecutions) and Cho Nam-nam (Public Trial)

Attorneys Kim Jong-hee (Korean National Assembly Line)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Gohap2015 Decided July 5, 2012

October 25, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,00,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

The core and essential parts of the paper of this case, including the selection of subjects, the collection of data, the survey, etc., were conducted by the defendant while Kim 00 only requested work such as the consultation of thesis, drum rearrangement, and the arrangement of data. Thus, Kim 00 cannot be said to have published the above thesis on behalf of the defendant, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination;

A. In a case where a person prepares an academic work of a master's degree of a master's degree as to the assertion of mistake, it is deemed that obtaining simple and technical assistance from others, such as translation of foreign books or statistical data processing, should be permitted in the course of preparing the thesis. However, the author is the most important thing to gather and analyze necessary documents or data and complete them in accordance with the framework of the thesis drawn up by guidance professors focusing on the preparation of the dissertation, and then complete the contents of the thesis. Thus, even if the author directly prepares the thesis's title, the subject, and the subject, etc. according to the instruction of guidance professors, if the author relieds on the most of the days of completing the contents of the thesis by analyzing and arranging data, it shall be deemed that the author was written by another person, not the thesis drawn up by the author (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2708, Jul. 30, 196).

The following circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below:

① The contents of the thesis of this case consisting of 0 items in total, and the quantity is 00 pages (except for literature, portraits, novels, etc.). Among them, the total amount of 43 pages up to 1 research model out of Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3, the defendant led to partial revision, and the defendant sent 3 parts and 4 research results, and 5 conclusions and suggestions were prepared by the defendant and sent 00 points, and the defendant received 00 points and completed 00 points and 00 points from the defendant received 0 points to 0 points, which are hard to see that it is hard to 0 points and 0 points to 0 points to see that it is hard to 0 points to see that the defendant obtained 0 points of the paper as 0 points of study, and the defendant prepared a master's degree and 0 points of study to 0 points of study or 1, which are hard to see as 1,000 points of study or 3 points of study to 0 points of study.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable and unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the evidence related thereto are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judges Lee Jae-won