The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and the legal principles, the Defendant, on September 2010, went to China for re-entry because the damaged company was required to work in the materials department for its subsidiary company, and the injured company filed a complaint against the Defendant. As such, the Defendant had not been staying in China for the purpose of evading punishment, and thus, the Defendant had already been prosecuted for the instant crime around January 2017.

Even if the statute of limitations of this case has not been completed, some of the transactions listed in the attached list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below constitutes an actual transaction, and the amount acquired by the defendant through the crime of this case is less than the amount stated in the facts charged.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the entire facts charged of this case guilty.

B. The punishment of the lower court (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “where an offender stays abroad to escape criminal punishment, the period of prescription shall be suspended during that period.” In such a case, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment is not limited to the sole purpose of staying overseas, but is included in several overseas stay purposes,” and “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” was sufficient, and if the offender was a room to escape criminal punishment, the purpose of escaping criminal punishment was “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment”.

The purpose of escape from criminal punishment is to maintain the term “the purpose of escape from criminal punishment” during the stay abroad, unless there is any objective reason to clearly manifest the subjective intent of an offender, which is incompatible with the “purpose of escape from criminal punishment” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8462, Jul. 26, 2012). The lower court and this court recognized the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court as follows.