The fact that the defendant left China on July 9, 2007 was aimed at running business in China, and the defendant did not return to Korea because he did not recover the money invested in the business dispute in China. Therefore, the statute of limitations for the crime of this case was suspended.

Now, among the facts charged in the instant case, all of the facts chargeds Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 were seven years of the statute of limitations.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the statute of limitations shall be suspended during the period of stay in a foreign country for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment." The legislative intent 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 for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment. Thus, the "purpose of escaping criminal punishment" as provided by the above provision is not limited to the only purpose of staying in the foreign country, but is included in several overseas purposes of staying in the foreign country, and if the offender's stay in the foreign country was a tool to escape criminal punishment, unless there are any circumstances to escape criminal punishment during the period of stay in the foreign country, it can be deemed that there was a "purpose of escaping criminal punishment" for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, unless there are objective circumstances to clearly express the subjective intent of the offender that is inconsistent with the above "purpose of escaping criminal punishment".

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4101 Decided December 11, 2008). According to the record, D, a police officer, on March 2007, is among the facts charged in the instant case.