The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was disqualified from the appointment of associate professors regardless of the instant thesis, so it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of interference with the examination of appointment of associate professors by the Defendant’s act related to the instant thesis. In addition, even if the Defendant submitted the instant thesis as research results of the examination of appointment of assistant professors, it is irrelevant to the determination of appointment of assistant professors, so it cannot be deemed that there was a risk of interference with the examination of appointment of assistant professors. 2) In the case of the Defendant, other papers alone meet the requirements for appointment of assistant professors, and thus

3) Even if the task of evaluating the faculty members of Cuniversity was obstructed, this is due to insufficient examination by the Cuniversity, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute crime of interference with business by deceptive means. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of the crime of interference with business on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is sufficient if it does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurs, and if the propriety or fairness of business is hindered, the crime of interference with business is established even in the case of interference with business. The submission of the defendant's plagiarism thesis, not only the duty of examination of promotion or reappointment, but also the appropriateness of the duty of evaluation of teacher's work, which is the premise thereof, can be seen as impeding the appropriateness of the duty of evaluation of teacher's work itself. The promotion and reappointment of teacher is based on the basic premise that the teacher's qualification should be equipped with personality and dignity as an educator (Articles 14 and 18 of the Regulations on the Appointment of Teachers), in addition to the requirements of education and research work, etc.