All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) In the suspension of prescription, the Defendant’s mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” in the suspension of indictment, and the Defendant did not go against Malaysia with the intent of escaping criminal punishment after committing the instant crime.

In other words, at the time, the family of the defendant was in the Malaysia, and the living basis of the defendant was based on his life, and only he went to the place.

The defendant, at his place, has expressed his veterinarian in the Embassy.

B) The prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles as to the abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution due to selective indictment, and who actively cooperates with the investigation by the defendant, such as making a statement to accomplices, including AL and AP in the course of the investigation, but they were not prosecuted. This is illegal because it is a selective indictment.

C) Although Korea’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles pertaining to the abuse of public prosecution authority due to delay prosecution and the prosecution of the Defendant was consented on July 10, 2018 by the Government of the Philippines, the prosecutor charged the instant prosecution on September 17, 2019.

As a result, the prosecution of this case is unlawful since it abused the right of prosecution, since the previous case was prosecuted for murder, etc.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Sentencing for prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted the same purport in the original trial, and the lower court rejected all the above arguments on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

In comparison with the record, the judgment of the court below is just, and it is against the abuse of the right of prosecution due to the mistake of facts or the prior indictment or delay in indictment in the suspension of prescription.