The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who served as the president of a F University (hereinafter “F”) from September 29, 2010 to September 28, 2014 and has overall control over university affairs.

On December 31, 2010, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology amended the Government Organization Act (No. 11690) on March 23, 2013, the Defendant was organized into “Ministry of Education”.

Article 9 (2) 9 (Budgetary Items) (2) of the Regulations on the Management of Accounting of Non-National Treasury (Ordinance No. 191; hereinafter “Regulations on Non-National Treasury Accounting”) amended on September 6, 2010 (hereinafter “School Department”) shall be compiled into the main budget by integrating personnel expenses, but the cost of benefits shall not be increased or paid through supplementary revised budget or diversion, except for the shortage of personnel expenses incurred in employing new personnel.

Accordingly, by immediately abolish the research promotion grants and administrative improvement research expenses, which are personnel expenses paid in the previous accounts of the F Society, there was a occupational duty not to pay the dues for dues for dues to any item other than those necessary for school operation or educational activities.

Nevertheless, instead of discontinuing research promotion grants and administrative improvement research expenses, the Defendant increased the amount of research subsidies for personnel expenses in the expenditure budget of the Seongdong Council accounts to the amount reduced, and paid a total of KRW 3.75 billion to F professors and faculty members from March 201 to November 2012.

As a result, the Defendant violated his duty and caused FM professors and faculty members to gain pecuniary advantage of KRW 3.757 billion and to incur loss equivalent to the same amount to FMM.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor was in violation of the duty of the Defendant.

It is recognized that the defendant had the intention of breach of trust.