The judgment below

Among the crimes in paragraphs (1), (4) (c), and (5) (b) of the judgment with respect to Defendant A shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) and each of the facts charged in this case’s indictment of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Article 1(a) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not reach the extent to which the Defendant’s act abused his right of defense beyond the ordinary flight type. However, the court below convicted all of the defendants. In so determining, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfairness) sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment and 10 months of fine; the defendant B; the defendant C: the fine of 3 million won; and the fine of 2 million won) are too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A (1) In the crime of escape from a criminal under Article 151 of the Criminal Act, the term “influoring another person” means any act that makes it difficult or impossible to act as a criminal justice, such as investigation, trial, execution of sentence, etc. by means other than concealment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11137, Dec. 24, 2008). Meanwhile, an offender’s act of escape is not subject to punishment. Thus, an offender’s act of requesting another person to assist in escape is not subject to punishment as long as it falls under the category of the act of escape. This also applies where another person’s act of aiding the offender at the request of the offender constitutes an offense of escape.

However, if it can be seen as an abuse of right of defense, such as the case where a person makes another person make a person make a false confession, etc., the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal may be deemed as an abuse of right of defense.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do20, Mar. 24, 2000). In such a case, whether it can be seen as abuse of the right of defense or not is the act of allowing the criminal to escape.