The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (three years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: The person who prepared and submitted an application and plan for research and development projects to the industry-academic cooperation foundation for the facts charged in the case of 2015 high-class 67 cases is not the defendant but other professors, such as Q, etc., which are the responsible research institute for this part of the research task. The defendant merely introduced the students of the defendant to the above responsible research institute, and integrated personnel expenses with the voluntary consent of the above students upon the payment of personnel expenses. 2) The punishment sentenced by the

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, and the prosecutor proposed that the applicable provisions to the facts charged in Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act should be "Article 347 (1) and Article 344 of the Criminal Act", "Article 347 (1) and Article 34 of the Criminal Act shall be "Article 347 (1) and Article 34 of the Criminal Act", and "whether or not to conduct a joint research" shall be "a person who has accepted it shall be required to make a joint research" and "a person who has Q professor who may know of it shall be changed to "a person who has been tried to do so," and this court was changed to the subject of

In addition, the above crime against the defendant and the rest of the crime in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, other professors, such as Q Q, etc.