A. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant, while holding office as representative director of the non-indicted corporation, was issued a check number check, 0,00 won at the above company's office in June 195, 200, 330,000 won at the face value, 50,000 won at the company's office from June 8, 1995, and the defendant issued a check number check and presented a payment proposal within the payment time limit, but no payment is made as suspension of transaction from June 1995 to December 32 of the same year. However, since June 1995, the defendant issued a check number of 0,00 won at the above company's office, 330,000 won at the face value, 50,000 won at the face value, 50,000 won at the same time between the above company's office and the above company's office.

B. The judgment of the court below

On February 22, 1996, it seems that the defendant had the purpose of escaping from criminal punishment at the time of departure from China. However, if the return of the defendant was impossible at the time of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced in China due to imprisonment with prison labor sentenced in China, it cannot be readily determined that the defendant had been in a foreign country with the intention of escaping from criminal punishment. Accordingly, the statute of limitations continues to run as a principle, and thus, the defendant was acquitted by deeming that the statute of limitations expired.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

Unless there are special circumstances such as the escape of criminal punishment when the defendant left Korea for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, it is reasonable to deem that the statute of limitations should be suspended, and since the purpose of escape is not extinguished due to the defendant's living in a separate crime, the statute of limitations is still suspended. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

Article 249 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the statute of limitations shall not be imposed when a certain period of time elapses after the occurrence of the crime, while Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides an exception that the statute of limitations shall be suspended when the offender stays abroad in order to escape criminal punishment in order to escape criminal punishment in consideration of the necessity of punishment against the offender who does not exercise the state's penal authority.

In this context, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” is not limited to the stay abroad solely with the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, but it is sufficient if the purpose of escaping criminal punishment is included among several overseas stay purposes of the offender. However, the purpose of escape should be maintained not only at the time of the escape abroad, but also at the time of the stay abroad. In interpreting Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act as an exception provision to suspend the progress of the statute of limitations in principle, it should be limited to the extent that does not infringe on the essence and purpose of the statute of limitations system. Therefore, if the purpose of escape has expired during the stay abroad or special circumstances corresponding thereto have occurred, it is reasonable to deem that the suspended statute of limitations will resume.

In the instant case, even though the purpose of escaping criminal punishment due to the issuance of the instant dishonor check was included at the time when the Defendant left Korea from Korea, if the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years by committing another crime while staying abroad, and was sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years, it is difficult to view that the period of prescription is “where the Defendant is located in a foreign country for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment,” regardless of the Defendant’s intention or purpose, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s right of punishment is impossible to exercise, such as where the Defendant was unable to return to Korea by his own will, regardless of the Defendant’s intention or purpose (i.e.,, the country can grasp the present location of the Defendant through the consular official in

Therefore, the statute of limitations suspended during the period from March 14, 1998 to January 13, 2007 when the defendant was confined in Chinese prison, and the judgment of the court below that held the statute of limitations expired before the prosecution of this case is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Sung (Presiding Judge)