logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.24 2015도5916
횡령
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 253 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the statute of limitations shall be suspended during the period of criminal punishment where the offender stays abroad in order to escape criminal punishment."

The legislative purpose 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 where the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea substantially falls short of the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea is used as a means of escape.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4101 Decided December 11, 2008). Therefore, the phrase “where a person stays abroad with the intent to escape criminal punishment” as prescribed by the above provision is not limited to cases where the criminal escaped abroad in order to escape criminal punishment, and it also includes cases where the criminal continues his/her stay abroad with the intent to escape criminal punishment.

On the other hand, "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" is not limited to the only purpose of stay abroad, but it is sufficient that it is included in the purpose of stay abroad.

If the criminal located abroad was a tool to escape criminal punishment, it can be deemed that there was "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment". Unless there exist objective circumstances that clearly reveal the criminal's subjective intent that cannot be compatible with the "purpose of escaping criminal punishment", the "purpose of escaping criminal punishment" continues to exist during the period of overseas stay.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do7527, Dec. 9, 2005; 201Do8462, Jul. 26, 2012). For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant stayed abroad for “purpose of escaping criminal punishment” and asserted the Defendant’s grounds of appeal claiming the completion of the statute of limitations for the instant crime.

arrow