beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that even if the statute of limitations has been suspended from May 28, 2002 to January 12, 2010, the court below determined that the statute of limitations has expired for the instant public prosecution instituted on August 24, 2018, on the ground that there was no proof as to whether the Defendant, who is a U.S. national, had the intent to escape criminal punishment again after January 18, 2010, left the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the charge of the instant public prosecution instituted on August 24, 2018.
Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "where a person stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" is not limited to the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, and it is sufficient to include the purpose of escaping criminal punishment among several overseas stay purposes of the offender. Thus, the statute of limitations on prosecution continues to be suspended even after January 18, 2010 when the defendant departs from the Republic of Korea.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the suspension of statute of limitations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In light of the fact that the statute of limitations for the instant crime was seven years, and that the Defendant left the Republic of Korea on May 28, 2002, and submitted a written statement to the prosecution around June 27, 2002, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant did not enter the Republic of Korea; ③ the Defendant, who is a U.S. national, entered the Republic of Korea on January 12, 2010, left the Republic of Korea again on January 18, 2010, but left the Republic of Korea on January 18, 2010; and there is doubt as to whether the Defendant continued to be exempted from criminal punishment after January 18, 2018; and there is no proof of the prosecutor’s proof to this, and thus, the instant facts charged constituted “when the statute of limitations has expired” and thus, acquitted the Defendant.
B. We affirm the judgment of the court below by comparing the above judgment of the court below with records, and the prosecutor is justified.