The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A research service contract was actually concluded by the authority awarding the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles upon requesting the Defendant to perform the research service, and the Defendant consented thereto. At this stage, the contents of the research service contract, such as research tasks, research period, and total amount of research service costs, have been determined.

Among the total amount of the agreed research service costs, the amount of personnel expenses, etc. for researchers was not considered in determining whether the ordering agency has concluded the research service contract. Accordingly, even if the Defendant submitted a research plan that includes personnel expenses, etc. for false researchers when concluding a formal research service contract with the ordering agency, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act even if the Defendant submitted the research plan that includes personnel expenses, etc. for the researchers. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not perform property disposal act, such as concluding the research service contract with the Defendant or setting the amount higher than the amount of the research service cost, due to

In addition, the defendant, at the request of the ordering authority, only prepared a research plan by means of inevitably registering false researchers in order to prepare a research plan in accordance with the research service cost set in advance by the ordering authority, and there was no intention of deceiving the ordering authority to obtain personnel expenses, etc. of researchers or to obtain illegal acquisition.

An executing agency is merely a substantial party to the research service contract, but it is merely a disbursement of the research station expenses in accordance with the terms of the research service contract set between the ordering agency and the Defendant. In order to conclude the research service contract with the ordering agency, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant claims the research expenses, etc. on the ground of false researchers in line with the total amount of the research service expenses, and thus, the Defendant

institution. ...