beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of all the facts charged of this case against the Defendant was erroneous or erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine as seen below.
A) The receipt of property in breach of trust (1) was changed from June 1, 2005 to December 11, 201, G Co., Ltd. and from December 12, 2011 to G with limited liability company from December 12, 201.
The term “L-related research contract” entered into between D University Industry-Academic Cooperation (hereinafter “F”) and D University Industry-Academic Cooperation Association (hereinafter “Research contract of this case”) and the advisory entrustment contract entered into between the Defendant and F (hereinafter “the instant advisory contract”) are separate contracts. As such, the money that the Defendant received from F to F as advisory fees under the instant advisory contract is merely a reasonable advisory contract, not a consideration for illegal solicitation.
② The instant research contract is merely a private contract, and thus, the fiduciary duty owed by the Defendant to D University as a person in charge of research is merely a good manager to achieve and fulfill the purpose of the instant research contract. As such, the Defendant’s performance of the instant research cannot be deemed to require objectivity of high level of integrity and objectivity in performing the instant research. The Defendant did not manipulate research and test conditions or distort the test results in order to derive favorable research results within the framework of research, knowledge, and experience permitted by himself/herself, and did not distort the research and test conditions or to derive favorable research results. Therefore, the Defendant breached the fiduciary duty to follow as a person in charge of research.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, in the case of the contract such as the contract of this case, as long as it is not illegal, the results of the study are consistent with the purpose of the contract of F which is the client interest.