A. The defendant does not stay in China for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment due to the crime of this case, and the defendant does not have any reason to suspend the statute of limitations. Thus, the prosecution of this case should be acquitted on the ground that the statute of limitations expires.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the argument that the statute of limitations expired

A. Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the statute of limitations shall be suspended in cases where the offender stays abroad in order to escape criminal punishment. In this case, the purpose of the offender's stay abroad is not to limit the stay abroad solely for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, but to include the purpose of escaping criminal punishment among several overseas stay purposes of the offender, which is sufficient.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4994 delivered on January 24, 2003, etc.). B.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the following facts are recognized:

① The Defendant committed the instant embezzlement from June 3, 1999 to December 3, 1999 after departing China for the purpose of avoiding creditors’ demands related to prepaid money. < Amended by Act No. 6010, Dec. 3, 1999>

② The instant crime was committed on the part of the Defendant, who was an accomplice in Korea, by preparing a passport and proposing a criminal act to bring the Defendant to China, because it could be seen that the Defendant would benefit from the sale of the passport to the ship yard, etc.

③ A considerable number of victims reported the loss of the passport immediately after the crime of this case. From January 3, 200, the police investigation of the victims of this case began, and the prosecution on May 2, 2001 against B, co-offenders for the crime of embezzlement of this case.