The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The statute of limitations period for the facts charged in this case is seven years and the date of commencement of the statute of limitations period is the defendant's last receipt of money from the victim on September 7, 2005. Thus, the statute of limitations on September 6, 2012 expired.

Meanwhile, the Defendant left Indonesia on October 31, 2006 and was abroad until he returned to the Republic of Korea on July 7, 2012. However, this is due to the Defendant’s marriage with Indonesia, making it impossible for him to take care of home and return to Korea, such as having given birth and bringing up his children, etc., by marriage with Indonesia, and thus, the statute of limitations has not been suspended during the above period.

B. The victim of mistake of facts merely remitted money under the pretext of investment in relation to “Indonesian scrap metal import business”, and the defendant does not receive money by deceiving the victim under the name of “development project of the site for the Embassy of Indonesian Embassy.”

Furthermore, the money remitted by the victim is only remitted to L/U, or remitted as ordered by him/her, and there is no criminal intent to commit fraud.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations expired in the lower court also asserted the same purport, and the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the facts and circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence, continued to stay in Indonesia without entering the Republic of Korea to escape criminal punishment due to criminal punishment when the Defendant was subject to criminal complaint from P around November 19, 2008, while the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant as the instant case on or around November 19, 2008, and came to know of the fact, and thus, stayed abroad to escape criminal punishment. Thus, the lower court should be deemed that the Defendant stayed abroad.