1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court ex officio reversed the judgment of the first instance court ordering the intervenors to confiscate or collect, ex officio, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Decomposed Property (hereinafter “Act”) and did not separately sentence the intervenors.

Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Loss of Decomposed Property may be additionally collected in cases where it is deemed that the recovery of damage is extremely difficult for a victim of a crime, such as where the victim is unable to exercise his/her right to claim the return of property or the claim for compensation for damage against the criminal with respect to his/her property.

The phrase “only provides for the exceptional reasons for the exception of confiscation.”

In this regard, property damaged by crime is also included in perishable property, and in the case of perishable property, the subject and requirements of the confiscation are specifically prescribed in Articles 3 through 5 of the Act on the Elimination of Decomposed Property, and later, Article 6 (1) of the Act can be exceptionally collected for property damaged by crime.

Since the confiscation of Article 6 (1) of the above Act also provides that additional collection shall be possible in accordance with the subject and requirements of Articles 3 through 5 of the above Act.

must be viewed.

However, in light of the contents, method of crime, etc. identified by the victim as to the organization, size, and human composition of the victim, or the flow of the crime victim's property in this case, it is insufficient to view that the case constitutes "where it is extremely difficult to recover damage, such as where the victim is unable to exercise his/her right to claim the return of property or the right to claim the compensation for damage, etc." under Article 6 (1) of the Act.

Therefore, although the court below's reasoning is somewhat insufficient, it is acceptable to take measures that did not confiscate or collect the intervenors as above, and it is interpreted as Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Loss of Decomposed Property, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.