The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not obstruct the work of APJS WD and D University, and there was no intention to interfere with the work.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.
B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was appointed as an associate professor or assistant professor at the D University E Campus on September 1, 2008 and was promoted to the associate professor around March 2010 and served as a professor of the said department until now.
On March 2008, the defendant interfered with the business of the APJS WD, an overseas academic area, prepared and sent a written oath that the defendant's thesis of "G" (hereinafter "G") was published on the APJSWD side, an international academic journal published by the National University of Singapore, and that the above thesis did not have been published or published in the previous place, and then the APJS WD side examined and made a decision to publish this thesis in the APSD around June 2009.
However, on January 208, 2008, before the Defendant applied for the publication of this paper on the APJWD side, the Defendant applied for the publication of this paper in the thesis book of social welfare administration debate, which is published by K. Accordingly, around June 2008, the thesis of this case was published in the thesis book of social welfare administration.
As can be seen, the Defendant had already applied for publication of the same thesis to the Social Welfare Administration Forum, which is another academic journal, when filing an application for publication in the APJS WD. In addition, around June 2008, the Defendant did not inform the APJS WD of the fact that the Defendant had become aware of such fact and the fact that the same thesis was published in another academic journal around June 2008.