The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not attend a meeting held at the date and time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and there was no fact that the Defendant made the victim the statement that “research expenses are feasible, feasible, and feasible,” and even if the Defendant made the statement to the same purport, it should be deemed that this constitutes an act that does not go against the social rules and thus, the illegality of the facts charged in the instant case should

B. Considering the fact that the victim was dissatisfied with his dismissal from the university and the accused was suspected to have raised a complaint, and that the Defendant was actively engaged in research activities while working as university professors for not less than 30 years, and that the Defendant did not have any particular criminal record, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of an ex officio determination prosecutor, the Defendant’s name of the crime was “defluence” from “defluence” and the applicable provisions of law are “Article 311 of the Criminal Act” and the facts charged are as follows.

As stated in the paragraph, the application for changes in the indictment was filed, and this court permitted the changes in the subject matter of the adjudication, so the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the lower court's argument of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the changed facts charged despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. Around December 26, 2011, the Defendant: (a) completed meetings related to the electrical engineering of the E University and the Defendant’s graduate school room located in Seo-gu, Busan; (b) and (c) did not use the research funds at will by the victim H, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had not arbitrarily used the research funds.