I’m sorry things got unclear there. But it’s kind of an unclear situation.
The short answer is: it depends on which of the previous nouns {apo} (or rather the whole prepositional phrase starting with {apo}) is supposed to be referencing.
If a translator thinks it’s supposed to reference “eonian whole-ruination” or “justice”, they’ll translate {apo} “from”, because “away from” would make no sense. Those are also the two closest options in the sentence.
If a translator thinks it’s supposed to reference those who shall value-pay the justice (or however they prefer to ignore the positive valuation inherent in the term there instead 
), they’ll translate {apo} “away from” because “from” would make no sense.
Regarding that sentence by itself, it’s less probable that the preposition refers to “those who”, because there are two closer possibilities that the preposition might be intended to refer to, but it isn’t impossible or even implausible.
Consequently, the proper translation has to be determined by the contexts (whether immediate, local or extended.)
This is why when I’m analyzing that verse I never stress “from” instead of “away from” (although I do translate it that way), and always tally up the contexts instead. (Or for the past few years anyway. 
I used to think there was some kind of inherent tendency for the term to mean “from” instead of “away from”, too. But I haven’t argued the verse on that ground for a while.)
To pull a semi-random example out of my hat: Knoch in his Concordant Literal Translation translates the term “from” at that verse. But in his Concordance, he indicates that the same term can mean “away from”, too. He designates where he thinks the context indicates “away from” by translating it “faway” (or more often as “away from”. 
)
It’s the exact same term either way. The most we can argue from the term itself is that it doesn’t inherently mean “away from”.
That’s the best I currently know about the grammatic situation there regarding {apo} and its translation.
For what it’s worth, I have no particular preference for it meaning “from” or “away from”. While I think the local and referential contexts clearly and very decisively indicate “from” is intended (i.e. the sinners are being wholly ruined by justice coming from the presence of YHWH), there are long-scale contexts indicating some kind of privation, too (sinners being sent away and/or fleeing from the presence of YHWH. Including in Isaiah 2!–although that isn’t the main thrust of what’s happening in the descriptions of what YHWH’s revealed presence means for them.)
So then we come to the third possibility: Paul was a rabbi and was making a double-meaning play on words here! The whole-ruination comes from the presence of YHWH, and the sinners are fleeing (and/or being sent away in some fashion) from the presence of YHWH.
One thing it can’t really mean is that the sinners are being continually destroyed by YHWH away from YHWH’s omnipresence. That’s merely self-contradictory nonsense, and it doesn’t fit the referential context at all. Which involves sinners trying to flee (with some humorous imagery) from His burning presence, completely failing to do so, eventually repenting of their sins, and seeking and receiving reconciliation with God and with the people they oppressed, so that everyone lives together happily ever after.
(Which also, not incidentally, synchs up with the peculiar Greek expression there about the sinners willingly paying/valuing the justice of their own whole-ruination. Which, also not incidentally, is practically never translated that way. )
) Maybe, but that would mean the {apo} doesn’t mean “away from”.