The legislative purport of Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the grounds for suspending the statute of limitations / Whether “where a criminal is in a foreign country for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” as prescribed in the said provision includes a case where the criminal continues to stay in a foreign country for the purpose of committing a crime outside the country and escaping criminal punishment (affirmative)

Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The statute of limitations shall be suspended during the period of criminal punishment where the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.” The legislative purport of the above provision is to properly realize the penal authority by preventing the statute of limitations from proceeding during the period of stay in a case where the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.” Therefore, “where the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” as prescribed by the above provision is not limited to cases where the offender abscondss abroad for the purpose of evading criminal punishment and escaping criminal punishment, and also includes cases where the offender continues to stay abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.

Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4101 Decided December 11, 2008 (Gong2009Sang, 56)

Defendant

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 2014No3436 Decided April 9, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The statute of limitations shall be suspended during the period when the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.” The legislative purport of the above provision is to properly realize the penal authority by preventing the statute of limitations from proceeding during the period of stay in a foreign country where the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.” The legislative purpose of the above provision is to properly realize the penal authority by preventing the offender from staying abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment during the period of stay (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4101, Dec. 11, 2008). Therefore, the term “where the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” as prescribed by the above provision is not limited to cases where the offender committed a crime in the Republic of Korea, and the offender continues to stay abroad for the purpose of evading criminal punishment and escaping criminal punishment.

On the other hand, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” is not limited to the sole purpose of staying in a foreign country, but it is sufficient for the criminal to be included in the stay abroad. If the criminal residing in a foreign country was a tool to escape criminal punishment, it can be deemed that there was “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment”. Unless there exist any objective circumstances clearly expressing the criminal’s subjective intent that is inconsistent with the “purpose of escaping criminal punishment”, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” continues to exist during the stay abroad (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do7527, Dec. 9, 2005; 2011Do8462, Jul. 26, 2012, etc.).

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant stayed abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal claiming the expiration of the statute of limitations on the instant crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)