A. The instant prosecution by misapprehending the legal principles was instituted on February 6, 2013, which was seven years after the date of each crime, and the statute of limitations expired since the Defendant was staying in the U.S. on the grounds of business, etc. and did not have been in a foreign country to avoid criminal punishment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the statute of limitations has not expired, and thereby found the Defendant guilty.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the crime Nos. 1 and 2 of the annexed crime list Nos. 1 and 2 of the original judgment: fine of 1.5 million won, and the crime Nos. 3 through 14 of the annexed crime list in the judgment of the court below: Imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “Where a criminal is located abroad to escape criminal punishment, the statute of limitations shall be suspended during that period.”

The legislative purpose of the above provision is to properly realize the penal authority by preventing the statute of limitations from proceeding during the period of stay in a foreign country where the offender stays in a foreign country where the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea substantially falls short of the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, if “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” prescribed by the above provision is not limited to the sole purpose of staying in a foreign country, and is included in several overseas stay purposes of the criminal, it can be deemed that there was a purpose of escaping criminal punishment, barring any special circumstance, unless there is any objective circumstance that clearly expresses the subjective intent of the criminal who is incompatible with the above penal punishment, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” continues to exist, unless there is any objective circumstance that clearly expresses the subjective intent of the criminal who is incompatible with the above penal punishment.

Supreme Court Decision 2008No. 11. Dec. 2008