logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.31 2013노51
사문서위조등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles - The statute of limitations for the instant crime was expired since the Defendant, upon the expiration of the statute of limitations, left the U.S. on December 11, 1996 and stayed in the U.S. before returning to the Republic of Korea on June 7, 2012 due to the fact that he/she lives together with his/her family and applied for permanent sovereignty.

B. The Defendant, a representative of F, did not prepare a security guarantee under the name of E Limited Corporation (hereinafter “E”), and did not deliver the said security guarantee to D Company (hereinafter “D”).

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the completion of the statute of limitations, Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that “the statute of limitations shall be suspended in cases where the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment,” and “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment is to suspend the statute of limitations.” Here, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” is not limited to the only purpose of staying abroad, but is included in several purposes of staying abroad. If the offender’s staying abroad was a tool to escape criminal punishment, it can be deemed that there was “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment,” and “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” continues to be maintained during the period of staying abroad unless there is any objective reason that clearly expresses the offender’s subjective intent inconsistent with “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8462, Jul. 26, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, the instant case was lawfully adopted from the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, and the Defendant returned to Korea, one of the following 19 months following 1.

arrow