According to Article 253(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the statute of limitations for one of the accomplices is suspended in the institution of a public prosecution, and the suspension of the statute of limitations for one of the accomplices has effect on other accomplices and begin to run from the time the judgment in the case becomes final and conclusive. The existence of the accomplice relationship under Article 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is determined by the court which judged the case at which the prescription is at issue at present and does not be bound by the judgment in other courts except in the case of Article 8 of the Court Organization Act. The judgment under Article 253(2) of the above Criminal Procedure Act is not final and conclusive, but is not subject to the type of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do3065 delivered on May 15, 1998). However, it is reasonable to interpret that the statute of limitations for one of the accomplices is invalid if he/she is found not guilty for the reason that there is no proof of a crime, unlike the case where he/she is found guilty.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below ruled that the defendant and the above non-indicted are co-offenders, and therefore the suspension of the statute of limitations due to the indictment against the above non-indicted cannot affect the defendant, so the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired for each crime under paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)