The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) false supplementary researchers, and violation of the Act on Frauding the Registration of and Subsidy Management for F University Industry-Academic Cooperation (1) Provided, however, the H University Industry-Academic Cooperation Association was established by researchers of E-Research Institute Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E Research Institute”) that actually performed research tasks with experimental equipment of the research institute, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the research institute was registered as a supplementary researcher to receive personnel expenses, and thus, the Defendant used each Industry-Academic Cooperation Group as an indirect principal offender’s tool.

subsection (b) of this section.

(2) The person ordering a research task shall enter into an agreement with the responsible research institute and pay the research cost en bloc to the responsible research institute in accordance with the agreement, and thereafter the responsible research institute shall execute the agreement in accordance with its specific purpose.

In light of the process of payment and enforcement of such research funds, the defendant, like the facts charged, deceiving the Korea Institute of Telecommunications Technology Evaluation and Planning, Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning, and the said Institute has paid research funds to the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(3) The Defendant is merely receiving research funds from each industry-academic cooperation foundation, and the Defendant does not directly receive subsidies from the government as the person who ordered the research task. Thus, the Defendant does not constitute “the person who received subsidies” as prescribed by the Subsidy Management Act.

B) The money fraud for goods was not explicitly agreed between N and C University to the effect that the small-sized pungdong for education should be a new product when concluding a supply contract for the small-sized pungdong for the instant education. As such, Defendant or N Representative M did not indicate that the small-sized pungdong for education of the instant case was a product designed and manufactured at the E Research Institute in around 2006 in the course of entering into a contract and delivery. Therefore, there was a deception against C University solely on the ground that Defendant or N Representative M did not indicate that the small-sized pungdong for education of the instant case was

assessment.