Nevertheless, as long as the defendant left Korea overseas to avoid all problems, such as investigations into various crimes, such as violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc., which occurred while operating the company of this case, and urging the creditors to pay back debts, the defendant had "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" under Article 253 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that rendered a judgment of acquittal of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the first instance court’s judgment of the first instance court cannot be deemed to have a purpose of escaping criminal punishment against the Defendant since it is difficult to view that the Defendant, at the time of departure on March 2, 2007, was aware of the possibility of being punished for the crime indicated in the facts charged of this case, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a purpose of escaping criminal punishment against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant was acquitted on the ground

B. In a case where it is difficult to see that the defendant had the possibility of being punished for the pertinent case, even if the defendant was in a foreign country in order to escape criminal punishment in relation to other accusation cases, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was in a foreign country for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment in the pertinent case.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3641 Decided October 11, 2002 and Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3641 Decided April 24, 2014