A. It is true that the Defendant, on May 23, 2009, left Vietnam and entered the United States via France, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

However, the purpose of the defendant's departure is to meet the debtor AI in the U.S. and collect the claim, not to leave the Republic of Korea for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.

Therefore, the statute of limitations has expired on September 10, 2018, which was 10 years since September 11, 2008, the date of the last crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted of this part of the charged facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statute of limitations, which affected the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too heavy or too unfasible (the two-year imprisonment).

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of legal principles 1) 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," and such "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" is not limited to the sole purpose of staying in a foreign country, but is included in several overseas purposes of staying in a foreign country, and if the criminal's staying in a foreign country was a tool to escape criminal punishment, "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" can be deemed to have existed. Unless there exists any objective circumstance clearly expressing the criminal's subjective intent that is inconsistent with "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment", "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" is continuously maintained during the period of stay in a foreign country (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8462, Jul. 26, 2012).