Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

When considering the prosecutor's mistake of the facts as to the fraud of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though it is difficult to see that the defendant is a new author of the thesis "G" as published in No. 24 of H academic journal (hereinafter "No. 1 thesis") and the thesis "I" published in No. 25 of the same academic journal (hereinafter "No. 2 thesis"), and in the case of multiple pages No. 1 and 2 thesis, it is difficult to see that the defendant is a new author of each thesis of this case in the case of multiple pages No. 1 and 2 thesis, the court below acquitted the defendant of fraud without recognizing the criminal intent by deception, on the ground that the defendant is a new author.

There should be circumstances to regard a person who is often responsible as a person responsible for a project or a person responsible for a project and can be seen as a person responsible for overall management and supervision of the experiment, but the defendant was limited to giving general advice to the number of students in a graduate school course.

Since each of the instant studies is a thesis that is submitted by graduate students for the subject of class and written as an individual character extremely, the concept of the author is not drawn up.

In the final report of the Committee on the Ethical Ethics of the Victim D University (hereinafter “School Foundation”) concluded that “the Defendant is unable to make any contribution at all,” and that the Defendant’s contribution is very low, and that it is appropriate to indicate it as a new teacher.” However, there was no particular explanation on the basis thereof.

Since the defendant has actively applied for the incentive for publication of the thesis in which his status is falsely written, the criminal intent of defraudation is recognized.

Defendant

In addition, the court below sentenced a fine of one million won against the prosecutor's wrongful assertion of sentencing obstruction.

The defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below is too excessive and unfair.