특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)
The judgment below
The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.
The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in misunderstanding legal principles, although it sentenced the confiscated mail truck to be confiscated, it cannot be deemed that the vehicle driven by the defendant was provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, and the seized truck is owned by the Central Free Trade Co., Ltd., and it does not belong to the defendant and is not subject to confiscation.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the portion of confiscation is a disposition to deprive ownership of the goods related to the offense charged and revert to the National Treasury. It is a punishment imposed in addition to other punishment. Article 48 of the Criminal Act is subject to forfeiture of “goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act among those not owned by a person other than the criminal.”
In this context, goods intended to be provided for criminal acts mean goods that were prepared to be used for criminal acts but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced in addition to other punishment in a conviction against the defendant who is accused of the facts charged, it should be recognized that certain goods are goods to be provided for criminal acts that are to be forfeited.
(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034 Decided February 14, 2008). The lower court ordered the confiscation of one of the modern main trucks (No. 1) and one of the two main keys (No. 2) operated by the Defendant at the time of the instant traffic accident, which is the vehicle, by the Defendant. This does not fall under the subject of necessary confiscation, but the said truck confiscated is owned by the Central Free Trade Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. which is not the Defendant.