The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing)

A. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction by misunderstanding the legal principles, even though the statute of limitations has expired since the defendant could not be deemed to have been in the United States with the aim of escaping criminal punishment of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of legal principles 1) Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the statute of limitations shall be suspended in cases where an offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment. In order to suspend the statute of limitations, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” is not limited to the sole purpose of staying abroad, but is sufficient if the offender stays abroad for several purposes of staying abroad. If the offender’s staying abroad was a tool to escape criminal punishment, “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” can be deemed to have existed, and “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” during the period of staying abroad shall be deemed to have been maintained, unless there exist any objective circumstances clearly expressing the offender’s subjective intent that is inconsistent with “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 205Do7527, Dec. 9, 2005; 201Do8462, Jul. 26, 2012; 2013Do538, Mar. 1, 2017).