A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, made a false statement as the actual business owner of the instant company. However, such false statement alone does not lead to the degree that the investigative agency could not make it difficult or impossible to detect or arrest A who is the actual business owner. Thus, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of crime.

However, since the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of crime.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes a crime of crime of crime of crime, the defendant did not have the awareness of illegality.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime, “an act of having an offender escape” under Article 151 of the Criminal Act refers to any act that makes it difficult or impossible to act as a criminal justice, such as investigation, trial, and execution of a sentence, by means other than concealment, and there is no restriction as to the means and method of such act, and the crime does not require any restriction as to the means and method thereof, and it is not required to interfere with the actual operation of criminal justice. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of making an investigative agency difficult to detect or arrest, i.e., the act of having an offender escape directly or indirectly, and that the purpose of such act is to directly escape.

As a result of any act that is difficult to see, it does not include cases in which the offender is indirectly informed and able to flee.

In the investigation of a criminal case, the investigation agency shall confirm the suspect regardless of the statements of the suspect or witness, and shall be objective to recognize the suspected fact.