2016 Highis 616 Breach of Trust, Fraud

A

Emphicals (prosecutions), Kim Jong-hee, and Hemnas (Public trial)

Law Firm (LLC) B

Attorney C

oly 10, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

24,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Criminal 1)

[Status of Defendant]

Since March 2009, the Defendant was in office as professor of the food nutrition department at D University and was performing E-related research at the D University Convergence Technology Research Institute.

【Basic Facts】

F (F) From around 190 to May 31, 2005, from around June 1, 2005 to December 11, 201, G Co., Ltd. and from around December 12, 201, the trade name was changed to G from around 2000 to up to December 12, 201; hereinafter referred to as “F”) manufactured and sold “SKY YO 1125 (main PHMP2)” as the primary raw material for humidifier disinfectant products (hereinafter referred to as “the humidifier disinfectant in this case”). Dur that period, the Republic of Korea was responsible for damage to the cause of the humidifier disinfectant in accordance with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Centers”), and the company’s final risk factors, including humidifier disinfectant products, were discovered to be discovered through an epidemiological investigation conducted on August 31, 201, to make it known to the people of the Republic of Health and Welfare the cause of damage caused by the humidifier disinfectant damage.

In such a situation, F intended to implement the inhaled toxicity test of the humidifier disinfectant of this case in order to prepare response data against civil and criminal incidents. In particular, around November 201, F made an example.

On September 2, 201, the Korea Centers established the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to secure the results of the inhaled toxicity test in favor of the FF that can reflect this at the time of the announcement of the results of the Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med. On September 2, 201, the President of the F Research Institute and KK visitedd Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med Med.

피고인과 F, I 측 관계자들은 2011. 9. 6.경 | 사무실에서 모여 흡입독성실험은 I에서, 흡입독성실험에 참고할 PHMG 노출평가실험은 D대학교에서 각 시행하기로 결정하였다.

On September 7, 2011, the Defendant announced ‘the outline and plan of research to confirm risk factors of humidifier disinfectants and unexploit damage caused by the cause' to F. F confirmed that the Defendant was requested to the D University on the same day, and notified the Defendant of this fact.

Around September 20, 201, F entered into a research contract (the research period: from September 20, 201 to September 19, 2012; research expenses: 100,000,000) with D University Industry Cooperation Foundation and L-related Business Cooperation Foundation. Around September 21, 2011, F entered into an entrustment contract with I and F on the Abnish toxicity test. The Defendant, as above, designated the research contract (the “L-related business contract”; hereinafter the “research project”) between D University and F as a person in charge of research on the said research project (the “Research”).

【Criminal Facts】

1. Acceptance of property in breach of trust;

The Defendant, on September 1, 201, determined as a person in charge of the instant research to be a person in charge of the instant research at the D University by F in early September 201. The Defendant, as a person in charge of the instant research, had a duty to fairly and objectively conduct the instant research, which is a business of the D University.

Nevertheless, from September 11, 201 to September 14, 2011, the Defendant received an implied illegal solicitation from the president of the F Research Institute to the effect that at the time the Defendant’s laboratory located in the D University located in Asan City (hereinafter “instant laboratory”) would cause F to undergo experiments and research in a direction favorable to F, and as a consideration, received KRW 200,000 from October 201 to September 201 as an advisory fee.

Accordingly, on October 10, 201, the Defendant received KRW 2 million from F to the bank account (0) in the name of the Defendant from F from September 10, 201, from the time to September 10, 201, a total of KRW 24 million, as shown in the List of Crimes (1), from September 10, 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant, as a person in charge of the instant research, acquired property in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in relation to his/her duties.

2. Fraud;

The Defendant, who conducts the instant research, falsely registers those who do not participate in the actual research as part of the participating researcher, and applied for personnel expenses in their names, or acquired the research funds of this case by purchasing equipment and materials irrelevant to the research.

(a) Fraud of research personnel expenses;

Around March 23, 2012, the Defendant was registered as a participating researcher even though the P did not participate in the instant research, and subsequently filed an application for payment of personnel expenses with the Korea Institute Industry Cooperation Foundation for the Victims D University. The Defendant received KRW 1,529,600 from the victim under the name of P to the Korean bank account in the name of P in the name of P, and received KRW 1,529,600 as personnel expenses, from October 15, 2012 to October 15, 2012, the Defendant acquired KRW 11,77,920 in total from the victim by filing an application for personnel expenses by registering P, R, S, and T, which did not participate in the instant research as a participating researcher, and by applying for personnel expenses.

B. The “WAPS” was established in the U.S. Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “U.S.”) in which the Defendant personally uses, and was irrelevant to the instant research. Nevertheless, around April 2, 2012, the Defendant submitted evidentiary documents, such as tax invoices, estimates, etc., as it is necessary to conduct the instant research in the instant research institute, to the employee in charge of the U.S. industry-academic cooperation foundation of the victims of the instant research institute. At that time, the Defendant: (a) had the victim deposit KRW 16.5 million in the name of the material cost of the research equipment in the name of V as indicated in the attached Table (3) from September 12, 2012 to September 12, 2012; (b) had the victim deposit KRW 16.5 million in the name of the material cost of the research equipment in the instant research institute; and (c) had the equipment cost of the instant research institute spent in the instant research by means of claiming research expenses from the victim to September 4, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

【Paragraph 1 of this Article】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness J. W. Each legal statement in W;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement and protocol of suspect examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of X, Y, Z and AA;

1. One copy of the research service contract between G and D (including the contents of research), one copy of the advisory service contract between A (one copy of the output of the advisory service contract on September 1, 201) (one copy of the evidence list) and one copy of the advisory service contract (one copy of the advisory service contract on September 11, 201), one copy of the advisory service contract on consignment (one copy of the advisory service contract on December 3, 2012) (one copy of the evidence list) (22) and one copy of the copy of the transaction of A passbook (Evidence No. 23), one copy of the printed materials of each article (Evidence No. 49), one copy of the printed materials of e-mail and attached documents (Evidence No. 54), one copy of the document prepared by the F attorney (Evidence No. 108), one copy of the advisory service statement submitted by the suspect (Evidence No. 109), one copy of the research service report (Evidence No. 12141, No. 12921,321, Evidence No. 5).1421 (Evidence No.

1. A copy of an investigation report (Adjustment of the results of a inhaled toxicity test related to the PHG and PGH), and a copy of the attached documents (Evidence No. 2), a copy of an investigation report (Analysis of the course of ascertaining the causations of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), a copy of the attached documents (Evidence No. 3), a copy of the investigation report (Organizational response to the announcement by the authorities), a copy of the attached documents (Evidence No. 6) and a copy of the attached documents (Evidence No. 7); an investigation report (Organizational concealment of the results of an diver toxicity test disadvantageous to the G) and a copy

【Paragraph 2 of this Article】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness AB;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement and protocol of suspect examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement about AC, P, X, T, S,D, AE, and R;

1. Part I (including the contents of research) of the research service agreement between G and D (including the contents of research), one copy of the research service agreement between G and D (Evidence No. 19), one copy of the report on the results of use (Evidence No. 26), one copy of the tax invoice of 12 kinds of introduced goods (Evidence No. 27), one copy (Evidence No. 28), one copy (Evidence No. 34), one copy (Evidence No. 35), one copy (Evidence No. 8, 2013), one copy (Evidence No. 35), the rules on the management of research expenses (Evidence No. 58), the rules on research affairs (Enforcement No. 60, 2011), the prevention of fraudulent research ethics, and the application of Rule No. 124(Evidence No. 124) of the Act and subordinate statutes, respectively;

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

Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the "former Criminal Act"), Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (including the receipt of property in breach of trust), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including the fraud), and each choice of imprisonment.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in more severe fraud)

1. Additional collection:

Article 357 (3) of the former Criminal Code

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Crimes of taking property in breach of trust in judgment;

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant's total amount of KRW 24 million received from the F as advisory fees (hereinafter referred to as "the amount in the name of the advisory fee of this case") is only the price for legitimate consultation, not the price for illegal solicitation.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

If a person who administers another’s business falls under the scope of business based on the trust relationship, and becomes practically in charge of the solicitation’s duty after receiving illegal solicitation in relation to the duties that can reasonably be expected to be in charge in the future, the integrity of the person who administers another’s business is harmed, and thus, the establishment of a crime of taking property in breach of trust may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13719, Oct. 11, 2013). “Unlawful solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust does not necessarily require the degree that it constitutes a crime of occupational breach of trust, and it is sufficient to determine that it goes against social rules or the principle of good faith. The content and form of the solicitation, the amount of property delivered or provided in relation thereto, transaction integrity, which is the benefit and protection of the law, should be comprehensively examined. In addition, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is established by a person who administers another’s business in exchange for unlawful solicitation and handling another’s business affairs with an indivisible solicitation.

2) In the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant provided advisory services to a certain extent on behalf of F. However, considering the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the nature of the instant advisory fee as the advisory fee and the consideration for implied solicitation requesting experiments and research in favor of F is indivisible. Accordingly, the entire amount of the instant advisory fee is indivisible in nature as the consideration for illegal solicitation.

A) Details of the new relationship and the degree of integrity required

(1) A university professor is mainly engaged in academic research, education and instruction of students, and industry-academic cooperation. A sense of duty, fairness, and integrity is required. Where a university professor conducts a research project under the name of the university or the industry-academic cooperation foundation upon request of an external institution for research services, there is a fiduciary relationship that shall maintain fairness, objectivity, appropriateness, and trust in society with respect to the pertinent university, which is the subject of the relevant duties.

(2) In particular, considering the social importance and degree of concern as to the risks of the humidifier disinfectant of this case, and the timing, circumstances, purpose, and contents of the study of this case, the study of this case requires high level of integrity and objectivity compared to other experiments and research work.

B) The motive for illegal solicitation and receipt of the consideration;

In the following light of the following circumstances, F researchers had sufficient motive to provide the defendant with money and valuables under the conditions of experiments and research in favor of his own company.

(1) If a humidifier disinfectant is determined as a result of collective severe damage, F was faced with a crisis and faced with the risk of being forced to pursue civil and criminal liability from the victim’s side in the event that the humidifier disinfectant is determined as a result of collective severe damage. The F was an imminent situation in which the results of experiments favorable to others and opinions of experts should be secured.

(2) Around August 26, 2011, the Defendant, prior to the official announcement of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, went against the position of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by raising a possibility of other causes, including myi, in a voluntary appearance, to voluntarily attend a briefing session held by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, prior to the official announcement. Accordingly, F related persons became aware of the Defendant as an expert to present favorable opinions on his own side.

(3) The instant research contract provides research tasks for L’s review and the operation of the advisory committee. In particular, the Defendant added the instant humidifier disinfectant to the actual apartment environment for six hours, and carried out a exposure evaluation test to measure the size of the winners, and the concentration of the PHMG generated in the habiting season, by operating the said humidifier disinfectant as much as the recommended usage of the instant humidifier disinfectant in the actual apartment environment for six hours. The aforementioned exposure evaluation test was meaningful first for providing reference materials necessary for the establishment of the conditions and method of the I inhaled toxic Test. In addition, considering the following circumstances, the above exposure evaluation experiment itself may be deemed to have an important meaning in determining the risk of the humidifier disinfectant.

(A) The risk of the humidifier disinfectant in this case is assessed on the basis of its toxicity and degree of exposure.

(B) The Defendant voluntarily stated in the prosecutor’s office that “if the hazards of the humidifier disinfectant of this case were revealed, the degree of exposure is important in determining the level of compensation” (Evidence List No. 78 Prosecutor’s Examination of Evidence No. 1).

(C) In the civil and criminal case regarding the responsibility for the manufacture and sale of the humidifier disinfectant of this case, the actual Defendant prepared and submitted a final report of the above exposure Evaluation and Testing on September 19, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “final report of this case”) was used as independent data to deny the causal link between the humidifier disinfectant of this case and the damage to the waste of this case.

(4) From the F perspective, it is difficult for the GLP agency, which is subject to strict restrictions on experimental research, to request FF convenience to the extent that it has authority over experimental and research results. In contrast, the Defendant, university professors, was relatively in the position of relatively taking advantage of F convenience, a research requester.

(5) The F-related personnel at the 4th anniversary of the I’s inhaled toxicity test, approved the results of the test report (the F-related personnel could not proceed with the 13th anniversary of the conclusion of the contract for the diversic toxicity test). In light of the foregoing, F-related personnel expected only favorable experiments and research results.

C) lack of objectivity of the research process of the instant case and the conclusion of the final report

(1) F는 2011. 9. 1.경 폐손상 환자 또는 그 가족들의 민·형사책임 추궁 가능성에 대비해서 자사 측에 유리한 실험결과를 확보하기 위하여 질병관리본부의 흡입독성 실험과 별도로 권위 있는 연구기관에 흡입독성실험을 의뢰하기로 결정하였다. 피고인은 흡입독성실험 의뢰 결정과 그에 기한 전체적인 실험계획 수립 과정에 주도적으로 개입하면서 F 측 목적을 잘 알고 있었다. 특히 피고인은 F 측과 연구계약 체결을 위해 교섭 중이던 2011. 9. 3.경 스스로 F에 유리한 내용의 연구목표(Goals of research project)를 작성하여 F 연구소장 J에게 이메일로 전달하였다. 그 구체적인 내용은 다음과 같다. O To prepare claims from families of the deceased pregnant women (사망한 임산부의 가족들로부터의 항의 대비).O To identify real cause of the lung fibrosis(폐섬유화의 실제 원인 확인). ○ To restore company reputation(회사 명성 회복). To prepare future KFDA registration for humidifier antimicrobial agent(가습기살균제의 향후 식품의약품안전처 등록준비).

(2) In the initial research of this case, the exposure and evaluation test was scheduled to be implemented once to provide necessary reference materials for the conditions and method of the I inhaled toxicity test. Accordingly, the Defendant implemented the exposure evaluation test from around October 17, 201 to October 25, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “AH exposure evaluation test”) and completed the exposure evaluation test required to provide the results of the test to I. referring to this, the I established the exposure evaluation concentration of four weeks of inhaled toxicity, and conducted the test from January 11, 2012. Since the 13 weeks toxicity test concentration of I was expected to refer to the results of the 4 weeks inhaled toxicity test, the Defendant was not required to additionally conduct the exposure evaluation test (Evidence 140 Z), the Defendant prepared an additional report on the exposure evaluation report from around 201 to 200 Z. hereinafter referred to as the “the last exposure evaluation report”).

(3) The instant final report, as a experimental research report, must draw a reasonable conclusion on the basis of objective and scientific data and analysis in its purpose and nature. However, in light of the following circumstances, at least, the Defendant stated in the F’s favorable opinion on the part of the instant final report to the effect that the Defendant may suffer damage to bruos (i.e., myi) in the end of the instant final report, without careful research and careful review on the results of the exposure evaluation test in F.C. friendly position.

(A) On August 201, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that the cause of pulmonary damage was presumed to be a humidifier disinfectant. On the other hand, around November 201 and February 201, the 1stma of the instant humidifier disinfectant was found to have been connected with the instant humidifier disinfectant damage and the results of the interim and final experiments. Moreover, the Defendant did not directly verify the probability that the instant humidifier disinfectant was the cause of pulmonary damage. The Z, the operating officer of the IEM test, was not able to take into account the level of toxicity in the Globalon 1, which was the 1stmath of the 5th of the 4th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 4th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 4th of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the H.

(B) However, “Review and Conclusion of the instant report” is presumed to be wintered with the point of time at which the humidifier disinfectant users have occurred, along with a summary of the terms and conditions of the exposure and evaluation experiment of the instant case. However, as a result of the exposure evaluation and experiment, PHG was considerably exposed to a low level of moisture compared to BGs. Moreover, it appears that most of the buyers discharged from moisture are difficult to be infected with the waste, and that a high density of the size that can be adhered to the waste would not be formed. Moreover, if HMG is exposed to a high concentration of HGs, it would be deemed that the survey of hazardous substances such as this case’s exposure to the humidifier disinfectant is necessary to find out that there is a difference between the pH’s vexical content and the vexical vexic vexic vexic vexic vex gic vex vex vex gic vex vex vex vex vex vesical analysis.

(C) In the final report of this case, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The reason why the concentration of PHG in the air was low is that it was absorbed into the wall, remote area, bed, and e.g., e., e., g., d., g., g., g., shot.” (38 pages of the final report of this case). However, even according to the Defendant’s explanation, it cannot interfere with an increase in the concentration of PHG from the point of time to the point of view. The final report of this case also states to the effect that “the number of time to run a long-time moisture and the habit becomes 90% higher than that of 90 to 10% higher than that of g. s. g. g., e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., e., g., g., e., g., g., g., g., e., g., g., g., g., e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g..

(D) As seen in the above Paragraph (b) above, the Defendant stated in the Prosecutor’s Office that “PHMG considered that it had not caused a disease due to high level of tolerance before the I experiment, but it could not be denied the possibility of the damage caused by humidifier disinfectant through I experiment.” In light of these statements, the part of the instant final report stating that PHMG could not directly be confirmed by the Defendant on the grounds of the size of the diverse inculation, the degree of harm caused by humidifier disinfectant, etc., and the degree of harm caused by the PHMG’s use of the hHMG in the instant final report is not consistent with the Defendant’s direct confirmation through Ithic toxicity test.

(E) Furthermore, the part referring to the possibility of brusool due to pulmonary damage caused by humidifier disinfectant users seems to lack objectivity. The reasons are as follows.

First, in ordinary, infectious diseases are mitigated by medication such as stheme, and in the case of pulmonary damage caused by humidifier disinfectant users, it did not respond to the existing pharmacologic in the case of damage caused by humidifier disinfectant users. The relevant patients did not find sypological, sypological, sypological, and virus pathogens related to pulmonary fiberization. The sypological and clinical opinions were not consistent with the infectious disease. The Defendant was also aware of the fact that the pathogens of the infectious disease was not discovered for the relevant patients (Evidence Protocol No. 149 No. 3 Prosecutor Examination of Evidence).

Second, there was a consensus of experts in the fact that the possibility of pulmonary damage caused to the patient at the time was imminent. 10)

Third, AA, the head of the Safety Evaluation Institute AG Center, reserveds the determination on the operation of the results of the BG Center's AG Center, and stated to the effect that "the conclusion that the causes of the pulmonary damage may fung, such as myi, in the situation where it is apparent that the pulmonary damage caused to the user of the humidifier disinfectant at the time was not affected by the infection."

Fourth, the conclusion that waste damage may occur due to the fungitous fishing.

The part is not based on the result of the experiment conducted by the defendant for the purpose of the research of this case.

The purpose of the exposure and evaluation test for humidifier disinfectant performed by the Defendant is to seek the concentration of PHMG actually generated in the apartment, and thus, it was a situation in which the PHMG’s value was presented based on the test result. However, the Defendant expressed his view that the Defendant may be the cause of the pulmonary damage, citing existing research without complying with the purpose of the study. On the other hand, the Defendant conducts an experiment on the causal relationship of the pulmonary damage caused by the fung, etc. to the relevant patients and that it is not based on the result. The Defendant is not a pathology or a disease expert, and without a new scientific experiment and research process, based on the previous research results and prejudice of experts.

Fifth, X, the main participating researcher of the instant research, stated that “I would know about the conclusion portion again so far. I would like to describe the meaning of our experiments compared to the existing literature or thesis and use it as an awareness that there is a need for an experiment in this direction in the future. I would like to read a large number of reports or papers used as the conclusion of the gold show report, but I would like to see it first. I would like to see the conclusion. I would like to say that I would like to see the (or 71st written statement of evidence No. 71).” According to this, I would like to know that the Defendant actively presented opinions on the cause of waste damage on the basis of comparison only of the HMG concentration measured in the A iron and winter exposure evaluation test was the method of the Defendant’s ordinary report preparation.

(F) The instant final report was prepared and submitted on September 19, 2012, after the I’s 4th anniversary of the completion of the instant report. The Defendant prepared and submitted a final report in line with the F expectations immediately after the receipt of the last advisory fee.

(4) Meanwhile, while carrying out the instant research, the Defendant continued to provide advice favorable to F on the toxicity of PHMG and the method of inhaled Medition of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc.

D) The details, timing, amount, method of payment, etc. of the instant consulting fee

(1) In full view of the contents of the instant research agreement and consultation between the Defendant and the Chairman of the F Research Institute and the F-related parties, and W’s statement, which is the J and F-in-house legal practitioner, it can be seen that the instant research agreement and consultation agreement were simultaneously implemented, and at the latest, the instant research agreement was actually finalized on September 7, 201 by sending e-mail demanding the Defendant to perform the contract amount and the test details.

(2) The advisory period (from September 2, 201 to September 1, 2012) and the period for the payment of advisory fees (from October 201 to September 2012) under the instant advisory contract, which is the basis for the payment of the instant advisory fee (hereinafter referred to as the “instant advisory contract”), overlap in whole or in part with the research period of the instant research contract (from September 20, 201 to September 19, 201).

(3) In light of the following circumstances, the instant amount of money under the advisory fee (a total of KRW 24 million per month) is excessive to consider it as pure advisory consideration.

(A) The experiment and research tasks of the D University, stipulated in the instant research agreement, include not only exposure evaluation tests, but also the examination of the capacity and test plan of inhaled toxicity tests; ② the examination of the pathology of inhaled toxicity tests; ③ the examination of inhaled toxicity tests; ④ the examination of the final report of inhaled toxicity tests; ⑤ the operation of the advisory committee. F paid KRW 100 million for the whole task to D University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation.

(B) The contents of the advice provided by the Defendant under the instant advisory contract are ① technical advice necessary for the disclosure evaluation of the target chemical substance, ② technical advice necessary for the evaluation of harmfulness of the target chemical substance, ③ technical advice on the evaluation of harmfulness of the target chemical substance, ④ technical advice and education on self-employed workers, ⑤ other services required by G. This overlaps with the purpose and contents of the instant research contract.

(C) The details of the advice (Evidence Nos. 109) submitted by the Defendant via his defense counsel include the required time and fee per hour (500 months) by the content of the advice that the Defendant asserted that the Defendant performed on behalf of F. However, most of the contents of the advice are included in the scope of the task under the instant research contract, and does not include any content of the advice since June 2012. Furthermore, the report (Evidence No. 122) prepared and submitted by the Defendant in relation to the inhaled toxicity test among the research of the instant case included considerable parts of the advice that the Defendant asserted, and thus, the Defendant did not clearly distinguish the scope of the research and advice of the instant case.

(D) The content of F officers, etc. arranged by the defense counsel in the case of occupational injury or death by occupational negligence (Evidence List Nos. 108) to the Defendant’s actual consultation (Evidence List Nos. 108) is nothing more than the presentation of opinions on PHMG toxicity, the point of view of the methods of pHG toxicity, the provision of foreign reports and papers, and the revision and review of written opinions submitted to the Fair Trade Commission, and it does not include any content of consultation conducted in the year

(E) On August 2012, the Defendant prepared and executed an expert opinion to be used as evidence in the civil and criminal case regarding the responsibility for the manufacture and sale of the humidifier disinfectant of this case. Although the time when the written opinion was prepared was in the period of advisory contract of this case, the Defendant was separately paid KRW 20 million in return for the written opinion.

(4) The instant advisory fee was not paid according to the actual contents or time required for the consultation, but paid a certain amount per month.

(5) Under the pretext of the instant advisory fee, the Korea University Industry-Academic Cooperation, which is the subject of the instant research agreement, was given and received without knowledge.

(6) In the first witness investigation, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “There is no money from F in addition to the research expenses paid by the industry-academic cooperation foundation”, and reversed it from the second witness investigation.

E) W, as a statement-based lawyer of F in-house FW, examined the instant research contract and advisory contract, based on the circumstances at that time, expressed to the effect that “I would not have made any specific solicitation to the Defendant in F, but at least convenience would have been the intention to pay advisory fees to the professors who are the researchers.” In addition, I stated to the effect that “I would be strictly prohibited from giving money by a separate contract with a person who may affect the experiment and research in order to secure the fairness and adequacy of the experiment when I requested a research service.”

2. Judgment:

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The researchers (P, R, S, and T) listed in the attached list of crimes (2) were engaged in research support, receipt of documents, maintenance and management of laboratories, etc. even if they did not participate in the direct research, such as the collection and analysis of samples, and data rearrangement. This constitutes indirect research. Accordingly, claiming their labor costs does not constitute deception.

2) Each equipment listed in the separate sheet of crimes (3) was actually used for the research of this case. Furthermore, even if the Defendant purchased or leased each of the above equipment for the purpose of using it for other research tasks, not for the research of this case, this is for the implementation of the victim's research tasks, and the victim does not have interest in the appropriateness of the execution of material costs, as there is no interest in the collection of indirect costs by task, etc.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

As a requirement for fraud, deception refers to any affirmative or passive act that has to observe each other in the wide sense of trust and good faith in the transaction of property. It does not necessarily require a false representation as to the important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient that it constitutes the basis of judgment for an actor to take a disposition of property that he/she wishes to take by mistake (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6905, Jul. 23, 2015).

2) In the instant case, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant had obtained research funds specified in the attached Table (2) and (3) by deceiving the victim. Therefore, the establishment of fraud may be recognized.

A) Strict limitations on the use of research funds

In light of the following circumstances, it can be seen that the use of research funds is strictly set in the D University.

(1) Relevant provisions

(A) Of the rules on the management of D University Research Funds applied at the time of the instant case, the parts relating to the instant case are as follows.

Article 3 (Accounting and Management) ① Entrustment Research Expenses shall be managed separately, and shall be managed separately, and in principle, by the division of each task.Third, the person in charge of the relevant task shall be the person in charge of the account (it is possible to establish a person in charge of the joint account at the request of the person in charge of the research), and the person in charge of the account shall be the final responsibility for the execution and settlement of the research expenses.Article 5 (Budget Formulation Standards) ③ The standards for compilation of budget shall be as specified in attached Table 1.The execution shall be completed at the time the research period of all research tasks under Article 9 (Completion Measures) expires and the remaining balance of the research expenses shall be treated as the revenue of the university: Provided, That this shall not apply where settlement is required

A person shall be appointed.

(B) Article 27 of the Regulations on the Research of D University, which was applied at the time of the instant case, provides that research equipment and research facilities generated in the course of research conducted by D University, shall belong to the D University, unless otherwise stipulated in the relevant contract.

(2) On April 11, 201, in the D University Research Support Management Office’s instruction on the Defendant’s computer, the term “payment of personnel expenses to non-participating researchers for the improper execution of external personnel expenses” is specified as the case of improper execution of personnel expenses, such as the purchase of machinery and materials (one-month purchase) at the end of the research, and the purchase of machinery and materials for the purpose of use (personal computers and indirect expenses not related to tasks).

(3) AB’s statement

AB, the victim industry-academia-research team leader, stated in the prosecutor's office and court that "in the case of personnel expenses to be paid to participating researchers, labor expenses should not be paid to the researchers who do not participate in the relevant research task." Accordingly, the victim made a statement to the effect that "if he/she knew of the fact that the research task is unrelated to the relevant task, he/she would not be paid research expenses, if he/she would not be paid to the researchers who do not participate in the relevant task."

B) Payment of personnel expenses for those who did not participate in the pertinent task is strictly prohibited under the regulations of the D University. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she claims for the instant research personnel expenses by falsely setting the participation rate in order to cover the personnel expenses for those indicated in the attached list of crimes (2) he/she has employed.

(1) The Defendant indicated P80%, R 32%, S 30%, and T 33%, and claimed for personnel expenses of the instant research (other than this, X, the main participating researcher of the instant research, indicated that X’s participation rate was 1% high.)

(2) P, R, S, and T were consistent with each other to the effect that they did not have participated in the instant research, and they did not know the fact that they were listed as the participating researchers.

(3) At the end of the research of the instant case, there was no particular experiment other than the preparation of a report on the exposure evaluation and experiment (this is limited to an experiment conducted by the Defendant on or around March 4, 2012 on condition of 100 times the recommended quantity in his apartment in his apartment site on or around the cadastral base). The persons listed in the attached crime inundation (2) are thereafter those who begin to work in the instant laboratory, and R are all those who have no participation in any research task while taking charge of the cleaning of water tanks, and S and T are those who participated only in ecological toxicity work distinct from the intake toxicity, and P are those who participated only in the research of other experiments, not in the instant research in the UP laboratory.

(4) The Defendant voluntarily stated in the prosecutorial office that “the participation rate indicated by the person in question is deemed to have no meaning. It is only the fact that the name is given in order to grant personnel expenses.”

C) The purchase of equipment necessary for research tasks other than the pertinent research task is strictly prohibited under the regulations of the D University. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she purchased the equipment specified in the attached list of crimes (3) with intent to use it mainly for research other than the instant research task, not for research.

(1) The time of the purchase or lease of the relevant equipment is after the completion of the process for the exposure evaluation of the relevant equipment.

(2) According to the provisions of the D University, goods purchased or leased as research funds shall be the victim’s assets, and such goods shall not be removed voluntarily from the school without permission. Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) purchased or leased the pertinent equipment from the beginning to the U.S. laboratory, which is not the research institute of this case; and (b) continuously used the equipment in the above place where the victim’s control and management does not reach the victim’s level; and (c) subsequently, the Defendant took out the equipment from the beginning to the U.S. laboratory without permission; and (d) continued to use the equipment at the above place where the victim’s control and management does not reach the victim’s level. In particular, as the Defendant was the victim’s investigation conducted as part of asset management in the course of the investigation conducted by the victim, there was no error on the part of the victim until the investigation of this case

(3) P did not appear in the prosecutor’s office to have been engaged in the instant research since May 2012. WAPS did not appear to have been used only once in UAP laboratory. Envirrest Regulatory on or around June 2012, Envir’s first used for the performance of the “AH” task performed by him/her, and did not seem to have been used by other people.

In stating to the effect that the Nanxic Cos are certain to have been introduced irrespective of the instant studies, the other research tasks in which the relevant equipment was used were specified as follows (Evidence Serial 73 Prosecutor’s Second Prosecutor’s Statement of Evidence).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) The Defendant asserts that WAPS used WAPS for the purpose of measurement of the cubic size and quantity, Envroon measurement, and Environation for the purpose of unit work, sosoft X-ray and power source suplet & Devir was a proteler, and Nanxctor used for the purpose of uniting. However, the test process or result using the pertinent equipment does not remain not only in the instant final report but also in any form. Rather, the instant final report only stated that “dryr” was measured using SNPS and APS rather than WAPS. The Defendant stated in the Prosecutor’s office that “it was not considered as material that it would have been reported to AI as an experiment using the relevant equipment.” (Evidence No. 781 and No. 781 of the Evidence List). Considering the Defendant’s assertion that there is no relevance to the research and development of the instant equipment, the instant final report appears to have been in view of the following circumstances.

D) The victim’s failure to strictly examine the degree of the victim’s examination on the purpose of the use of research funds is due to the fact that the victim believed a person in charge of research and executed research funds in a relationship where it is practically difficult to examine the purpose of the use of research funds. If the victim knew that it was personnel expenses and equipment expenses irrelevant to the instant research, it is apparent that the research funds would not have been executed as a matter of course if the victim knew of the fact

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to 15 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: Fraud;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud (less than KRW 100,00)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and 6 months;

(b) Concurrent crimes: Misappropriation;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 30 million) of Misappropriation Acceptance of Misappropriation

[Special Egressor [Special Egressor] In the case of unjust processing in relation to veterinary materials (Agressor) as seen above, the part of the final report of this case, which weighted to Fungi, etc. due to fungi, etc. damage in group, is not reasonably derived from scientific experiments. In light of the research contract of this case and advisory contract of this case, the details and purpose of the research contract of this case and advisory contract of this case, etc., it is determined that the above conclusion is related to the money received as advisory fee rather than the Defendant expressed pure opinion as a student. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant, in preparing the conclusion of the final report of this case, was engaged in a business that goes beyond the limits of academic freedom, social rules, or the principle of good faith, even if it is not limited to the degree of independent crime, such as the fabrication of evidence.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 6 months to 1 year and 6 months. The scope of recommendations according to the criteria for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months to 2 years (one year and 6 months, the upper limit of the range of punishment for concurrent crimes in one year and 6 months, the upper limit of the range of punishment for concurrent crimes)

3. Determination of sentence: Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and April, taking into account the following circumstances, and taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and result of the crime, various factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

In a case where a university professor disadvantageous to ○ is performing experimental research in the name of the university or the university or the university or the university or the university or the university of industry-academic cooperation with an external institution, there is a fiduciary relationship with which the university, the subject of such duties, shall maintain the fairness, objectivity, appropriateness, and the general trust of the society. Nevertheless, the Defendant has a fiduciary relationship with respect to such trust while leaving such trust.

With respect to the research of this case with a significant importance, the Defendant received 24 million won in total, including the consideration, from the F in return for illegal solicitation. The Defendant’s act was significantly impairing the fairness, objectivity and adequacy of research conducted at D University and the trust of the general public.

Moreover, the instant final report, in which the Defendant stated the opinion favorable to the F, has been used as a basis to support the F’s assertion, causing confusion in identifying the cause of damage caused by humidifier disinfectant. Moreover, it was also a cause for delaying the adequate compensation procedure for the victim of humidifier disinfectant.

On the other hand, the Defendant acquired by deception with intent to use research funds for a purpose other than the specified purpose and the amount of damage reaches KRW 68,77,920 in total. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take any measures for the recovery of damage.

The defendant does not seem to have a strong attitude toward the defendant's responsibility until this Court has reached this Court.

The instant study is against the Defendant’s failure to prosecute the Defendant’s act of preparing the instant final report as evidence) that caused collective damage to the user of humidifier disinfectant, and that it was made after being recommended to refrain from spreading and using humidifier disinfectant under the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and that it was not directly related to the occurrence of damage caused by the crackication. The Defendant also included a certain degree of the advisory value in the amount of KRW 24 million received in return for illegal solicitation from F. Meanwhile, there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant intentionally fabricated the experiment process of the instant research or the data itself (the Prosecutor did not prosecute the Defendant’s act of preparing the instant final report as evidence) and that his research made it difficult for the Defendant to compensate the victim of humidifier disinfectant by using it as a means of defensive defense.

On the other hand, the money that the Defendant acquired by deceiving as if it were personnel expenses for the research of this case was attributed to all the recipients (titler). As if it was the cost of equipment necessary for the research of this case, the money acquired by deceiving was used as research costs, such as purchase cost of other experimental tools, rather than the research of this case.

The Defendant is a primary offender who has no criminal power, and the Defendant has recently been recognized as a research business in Korea and abroad, such as receiving a contribution award at the International More Epics Association.

The presiding judge, judge and male citizens;

Judges Yoon Young-young

Judges or Jae-young

1) Part of the facts constituting a crime was revised according to the facts acknowledged within the extent that does not substantially disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense.

2) The chemical is the weak of Plyhexacehyeguides-Phosphate.

3) In relation to an epidemiological investigation of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it shall be deemed that the injury caused by the failure to perform its duties is destroyed by the “ weekly health and disease” as of November 11, 201.

The results of the epidemiological investigation were published. In the above notice, the "unexploit damage caused by the unexploited damage" is similar in the child at the beginning of the report.

References, which were classified as acute neute intersmic neumonia, have been ordered as "pulpary neutism", referring to the classification into acute neutronia.

The name of the disease has been changed due to the difference in the organizational opinion in the end of May.

Clinical opinions and the results of the inspection of micro-organism show low possibility of infection diseases, and possibility of pulmonary damage in lung by inhalement.

As a result of the collection of similar cases, this case shows symptoms of Manodo at the present stage, and this case is found in this stage.

The provisional name of the disease is ‘exploit damage'(in the investigation record 951 pages), which is written as ‘exploit damage'(in the investigation record 951 pages).

It is expressed as "defame damage".

(iv) fishing, strokes (in the form of solid or liquid strokes being floating on the body of vehicles) with biological reporters, with viruses; and

The products, etc. of organic organisms, such as gymnasium and germs, sporespores and flowerss, which can be independently alive, shall include products of organic organisms, etc.

(v) PHMG, even though the exposure evaluation and experiment was conducted in an indoor (multi-family) environment similar to that of the BG, whose winter is remarkably low compared to the BG.

The results of the experiment that the concentration has been measured show the adequacy of the objectivity. However, the computer is composed of a subdivision unit through consensus.

There is no clear trace that the ventilation rate, etc. in the automatic input data has been manipulatedd, and otherwise the defendant is not the other defendant

There is no evidence to deem that the experimental executor (AI) has fabricated the test result. The prosecutor also prepares the defendant's final report.

In relation to the charge of forging evidence, it was not prosecuted.

6) means the concentration of toxic substances which kill half (50%) of laboratory animals.

7) According to the instant final report, as a result of the Aran metal exposure evaluation and experiment, the smaller area of the actual apartment environment (average area of 9.87mi, physical area of 22.90m)

It is indicated that the average concentration of PHMG was measured at 8.72 g. The prosecutor's team of the Y, who is a testing officer for the inhaled toxicity test.

According to alcohol, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the Advisory Council announced the results of the exposure evaluation by 10-12 Y on the other hand.

in making a drug through animal testing by the prosecution, the degree of 100 times the safety field after calculating the harmful impact concentration shall be considered.

I stated to the effect that the initial clinical concentration is 1/100 of the risk concentration “......................., taking into account the safety coefficient.

Even if the average concentration of PHMG is 8.72 g/m square, it can be seen that the risk is sufficiently high.

8) 1. 1. 'Sastast generating machine' used for the inhaled toxicity test is an sastopic sastopic sastic sastrheat self-produced for the test above.

Part 139 Prosecutor’s protocol against No. 139 (Second Prosecutor’s protocol), and Prosecutor’s protocol against Z No. 140 of the evidence list)

9) The Defendant’s measurement of a significantly low level of PHMG concentration compared to BG concentration in the BG exposure and evaluation test for winter metal at all is not anticipated.

Although it was a result, it did not seem that there was an attempt to increase the running hours of damp season.

10) Evidence No. 3 Investigation Report (Analysis process of ascertaining the causal relationship between the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and documents attached thereto, and evidence No. 144 A

see the prosecutor's protocol etc.

11) The Defendant also would have not reflected the results of the exposure and evaluation test in the winter, even if the 13th degree of inhaled toxicity test was implemented.

In other words, the testimony was made (Evidence List No. 149 No. 3 Prosecutor's Examination of Evidence).