The judgment below

The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The lower court, upon the completion of the statute of limitations for misunderstanding the facts of the Defendant and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the fraud) on the grounds of appeal, deemed only G as a victim, including the part contributed to the property of the J, but also J and G Manogs relationship.

As to the portion contributed as the property of the J, the Court should be regarded as the injured party, and the completion of the statute of limitations should also be determined on this premise.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant did not escape abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, and even if, in order to escape criminal punishment, the Defendant escaped abroad;

Even if the purpose of escaping criminal punishment is maintained from the time when a prohibition of departure was issued on February 12, 2009 by a warning board.

As can not be seen, the statute of limitations has expired since the statute of limitations has been suspended only from February 14, 2006 to February 12, 2009, which is the date of departure of the defendant.

GB did not borrow money from J, and GBJ is a corporation E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) Na Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”).

Since the above two companies jointly invest in the company of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "company of this case"), the defendant is likely to be subject to criminal punishment due to such monetary transactions.

I could not think, G and J filed a complaint after about four months from the time when the defendant left Korea.

On June 12, 2006, the Defendant applied for a visa in the U.S. after obtaining a permit to enter the Republic of Korea for business in a Gags, and filed the said application, and thereafter, the application was invalidated upon departure from the U.S., making it difficult to return to the Republic of Korea. The Defendant was living on the basis of a Gags, such as marriage in a Gags and raising son and running a business. On February 12, 2009, when the Defendant was ordered to prohibit departure from a Gags, he/she did not intend to escape in comparison with seven years after the prescription period of the public prosecution against

As sufficient to see, it has been staying in the space market for a continuous period of time.