All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) contributed to the implementation of the research task stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) did not falsely compile E as a researcher

In addition, the industry-academic cooperation between the victim C University, even though it is aware that the researchers who actually participated in the research task are different from those organized by the researchers, the Defendant paid personnel expenses, and the Defendant only determined the research contribution, and the financial calculation of personnel expenses was conducted by the students themselves. Therefore, there is no relation between

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was found that students, including O, did not perform research tasks on the part of innocence as stated in the judgment below.

2) The lower court’s punishment (one million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the grounds for appeal that the Defendant did not falsely organize E as a research researcher, the Health Institute and the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons under the title “the grounds for conviction”. Examining the above judgment of the lower court in comparison with the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Next, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the grounds for appeal that there is no relation between deception and disposal, the act of deception is deemed to have been committed.