The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (fine 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Of the facts charged by the prosecutor in the instant case, the lower court convicted all of the Defendants of the charge, but acquitted the Defendants by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Judgment of the court below on the assertion of legal principles as to prosecutor's assertion of the crime of escape of a criminal under Article 151 of the Criminal Act refers to any act other than concealment which makes it difficult or impossible to act as a criminal such as investigation, trial, and execution of punishment. There is no restriction on the means and method of such act. In addition, the above crime does not require any restriction as a dangerous crime, but it is difficult to detect or arrest an investigation agency to the extent that it is improper to view it as a dangerous crime under Article 151, i.e., the act of directly facilitating escape or escape of a criminal. It is reasonable to interpret that it is limited to the act of directly facilitating escape or escape of an investigation agency. In addition, in investigating a criminal case, an investigation agency has the right and duty to determine the suspect and collect and investigate objective evidence to recognize such crime, so even if a witness has been investigated by an investigation agency and has silent or made a false statement about the fact, and it does not constitute a crime of confession of a criminal under Article 151 through 301 of the Criminal Act.