The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

A misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal (the fact that an offender is a victim) was merely stated in the investigative agency to the effect that he/she was “unsatisfy” and that he/she actively corrected the register of nursing.

Since it is not stated, an offender is not established.

Therefore, H did not enter into action without the consent of, or with the consent of, the execution of the Defendant’s teacher. As such, the Defendant should be punished in accordance with preliminary conspiracy. However, since there is no preliminary conspiracy punishment provision, the crime of avoiding criminal cannot be punished against the Defendant as the crime of aiding and abetting.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The “act of having a criminal escape” under Article 151 of the Criminal Act refers to any act that makes it difficult or impossible to act as a criminal justice by any means other than concealment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1137, Dec. 24, 2008, etc.). The act of a criminal escape by himself/herself is not subject to punishment. As such, the act of requesting another person to escape is not subject to punishment as long as it falls under the category of the act of escape, and even if another person’s act of having a criminal escape to comply with the request of the criminal constitutes a crime of having a criminal escape.

However, the crime of aiding and abetting another person to commit a crime, such as having another person make a false confession, may also be deemed an abuse of his/her right of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do20, Mar. 24, 2000). In such cases, whether it can be deemed an abuse of his/her right of defense can be deemed an abuse of his/her right of defense or not, the form and content of the act, relationship between the offender and the offender, and at the time of the act.