The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant obtained permission from the police officer in charge at the time of departure from New Zealand on February 24, 2010, after being investigated by the police on February 8, 2010 due to the instant case, regarding the suspension of statute of limitations, or misapprehending legal principles.

In addition, the defendant reported his domestic place of residence to the investigation agency before leaving New Zealand and confirmed whether he was summoned through his family.

In addition, after entering New Zealand, the Defendant applied for registration of Korean nationals residing in New Zealand, and requested the Korean National Police Agency to issue a criminal record certificate, and thereafter, the Defendant was engaged in normal economic activities in New Zealand’s name.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had an intent to escape criminal punishment during the period from February 24, 2010 to September 13, 2014, when the Defendant stayed in New Zealand. Therefore, the statute of limitations for the instant crime cannot be deemed to have been suspended during the said period.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the suspension of statute of limitations, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired by determining as follows under the title “determination on the completion of statute of limitations by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel” in the said judgment.

A. According to Article 249(1)3 and 4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter the same), the statute of limitations for each five-year statute of limitations shall apply to each of the crimes in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embezzlement) in the judgment, and each of the crimes in the forgery of each private document and the uttering of a falsified private document in the judgment. It is evident that each of the crimes in the judgment of this case was filed on September 25, 2014, after the expiration of the statute of limitations for each of the above crimes from each of the crimes

B. On the other hand, on the one hand.