[1] The meaning of and requirements for the establishment of a crime of escape of an offender

[2] Whether a person in a de facto marital relationship constitutes "relatives" under Articles 151 (2) and 155 (4) of the Criminal Code (negative)

[1] The crime of escape under Article 151 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which makes it difficult or impossible to act as a criminal justice such as investigation, trial, execution of sentence, etc. by means other than concealment of a criminal, and there is no restriction on the method of such act, and the above crime is not required as a dangerous crime, and it is not required to interfere with the actual operation of the criminal justice. Thus, the so-called "person who commits a crime" under Article 151 (1) of the Criminal Act includes a person who is under investigation after being suspected of a crime, and further, if a person who commits a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment is aware that he is a person who commits a crime but has not yet been under investigation at the time of the act, the crime of escape is also established even if he is not under investigation, and the so-called "the other person's criminal case" under Article 155 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime of destruction of evidence can be a criminal case even before the investigation procedure

[2] Articles 151(2) and 155(4) of the Criminal Act provide that a person in a de facto marital relationship shall not be punished in cases where a family member of his/her family, head of his/her family, or head of his/her living together commits an offense of escape or destruction of evidence for himself/herself. Thus, a person in a de facto marital relationship shall not be a relative under the Civil Act

[1] Article 151(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 151(2) and 155(4) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do1931 delivered on January 26, 1982 (Gong1982, 313), Supreme Court Decision 82Do274 delivered on April 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 548), Supreme Court Decision 93Do3080 delivered on March 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 164), Supreme Court Decision 93Do904 delivered on December 26, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 631), Supreme Court Decision 200Do4078 delivered on November 24, 200 (Gong201Sang, 2200), Supreme Court Decision 200Do53789 delivered on February 14, 2003 (Gong201, 2048384, 205Do208389, Apr. 28, 201)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Barun Law, Attorney Park Ho-ho

Seoul District Court Decision 2002No11790 Delivered on July 15, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The crime of escape of a criminal under Article 151 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that makes it difficult or impossible to act as a criminal justice, such as investigation, trial, and execution of a sentence, by a method other than concealment of a criminal. There is no restriction on the method, and the above crime is not required as a dangerous crime, and it is not required to interfere with the actual operation of criminal justice. Thus, so-called "person who commits a crime" under Article 151 (1) of the Criminal Act includes a person who is under investigation upon being suspected of a crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Do1931, Jan. 26, 1982; 93Do3080, Mar. 3, 1995; 200Do4078, Nov. 24, 200; 200Do4078, etc.). Further, if a person knows that he/she committed a crime corresponding to a fine or more severe punishment but has not yet been tried at the time of destruction of evidence under Article 157 (2) of the Criminal Act.

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, the defendant, while recognizing that the defendant was a person who committed an offense punishable by a fine or a heavier punishment, may allow the non-indicted 1 to repair the accident vehicle on the day of the incident while allowing the non-indicted 1 to escape from the foreign country. Thus, it is proper to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of all the facts of the crime of this case, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of attempted crimes

2. In addition, Articles 151(2) and 155(4) of the Criminal Act provide that a person in a de facto marital relationship shall not be punished when his/her family member or family member living together with the head of a household or a family member living together commits a crime of capital flight or destruction of evidence on his/her own behalf. Thus, a person in a de facto marital relationship shall not be a relative under the Civil Act and shall not be a relative under the above provision (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Do485, Apr. 22, 1980; 2001Do2514, Jun. 29, 2001, etc.).

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that rejected the defendant's assertion is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Articles 151 (2) and 155 (4) of the Criminal Act.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)