beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (as to occupational embezzlement No. 39, 40 of the list of crimes), Defendant A is not in the position of a custodian of the laboratory public funds, and Defendant A uses public funds with the permission of the custodian’s H. In addition, using KRW 27 million from the laboratory public funds for the benefit of the student researcher cannot be deemed to have been used for the benefit of the student researcher, or it cannot be deemed to have been used for any purpose other than the purpose of use. Since the Defendant was not arbitrarily used, the Defendant did not have any intent of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the establishment of the crime of embezzlement against Defendant A by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of embezzlement, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, it is unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 15 million) declared against Defendant A is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C1) The outcome obtained by using equipment such as misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the occupational breach of trust due to the use of reflective equipment), is the E Center (hereinafter “Center”).
(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of the crime of occupational breach of trust, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to commit occupational breach of trust or property interests in the part of the use of the first half-term equipment, as it is owned with its own own own own own technology and ultimately used equipment for the Center. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of suspended execution in August) is too unreasonable.
C. The prosecutor 1) According to the evidence of the prosecutor’s presentation of the prosecutor’s statement of H on the charge of occupational breach of trust (the acquittal part) and the e-mail details between H and the Defendant B, Defendant A.