[2] The legal nature of the disposition of realization in a case where the pertinent seized article was not confiscated after the disposition of realization in a subsequent criminal procedure (=an act equivalent to management of affairs) and the scope of expenses for the disposition of realization in a case where the State can seek reimbursement from the owner of the seized article (=the limit of expenses for the sale of the seized article)

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that limits the scope of redemption of the owner of seized agricultural products at the maximum amount of commission-listed fees under Article 25 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishery Products, which does not include all of the above expenses, even though the amount of storage, transportation, etc. is included

[2] Realization disposition by an investigative agency is a disposition under the Criminal Procedure Act for the preservation of economic value, and where the seized article is not confiscated through a subsequent criminal procedure, the realization disposition is deemed an act corresponding to the management of affairs for the owner of the seized article. Thus, the prosecutor's disposition for realization of the seized article and the cost required for realization may be claimed to the owner of the seized article. However, the seizure is a compulsory disposition to exclude the possession of the owner of the seized article, and the investigative agency acquires possession by the investigative agency, etc., and the realization disposition is also conducted without the authority and responsibility of the investigative agency, etc., regardless of its own intention. As such, the manager of the seized article may seek reimbursement of the cost of realization disposition within the limit of the cost of sale of the seized article that the owner of the seized article was not required to incur, namely, to the extent of existing interests.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that limits the scope of redemption of the owner of seized agricultural products with the maximum amount of consignment listing fees under Article 25 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Promotion of Agricultural and Fishery Products, which does not include all of the above expenses, even though the amount of storage fees, transportation expenses, etc. are included

In a criminal case where a non-guilty verdict is rendered and confirmed, the prosecutor’s obligation to return the seized articles to the presenter, owner, or other right holders under Article 332 of the Criminal Procedure Act is naturally attributable (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14018, Mar. 10, 1995). In a case where the seized articles are deemed as the confiscated articles or are likely to be destroyed, damaged, or decomposed and sold because it is difficult for the prosecutor to keep them in custody, the proceeds from sale may be the same as the confiscated articles (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2477, Nov. 12, 1996). In this regard, the court below determined that the defendant is liable to return the entire proceeds from the realization of the articles seized by the Plaintiff Cooperative to the Plaintiff Cooperative, and that the sales contract was established to deliver the articles to the Agricultural and Fishery Marketing Corporation at the time of the seizure of the said articles, and thus the Plaintiff Cooperative cannot be deemed as holding that the proceeds from sale in excess of the prices of the Agricultural and Fishery Marketing Corporation and the Agricultural Marketing Corporation was not authorized to return the above proceeds.

Meanwhile, even though a disposition by an investigative agency for the realization of seized articles is a disposition under the Criminal Procedure Act for the preservation of their economic value, the realization disposition is equivalent to the management of affairs for the owner of the articles (see Supreme Court Decision 4290Hun-Ga290, Jul. 25, 1957). Thus, the prosecutor’s disposition for the realization of seized articles and the cost required for the realization may be claimed as reimbursement to the owner of the articles. However, the seizure is a compulsory disposition to exclude possession of the owner of the articles, etc. and the investigative agency, etc. acquires possession of the articles, and the realization disposition is conducted by the investigative agency, etc. regardless of its authority and responsibility. As such, the manager of the seized articles may seek reimbursement of expenses for the realization disposition within the limit of the cost for the sale of the articles that the owner of the seized articles did not incur due to the realization disposition conducted by the investigative agency, etc. in accordance with the scope of expenses for the management of the articles when it was conducted against his/her own will.

The court below acknowledged that the Seoul Customs Director entered into a contract on the collection and consignment sale of seized goods that the defendant's intervenor's intervenor's 2,3 installment sales by open bidding with the Korea Veterans Welfare Corporation (Customs Goods Sales Service), but that the fees shall be paid at 24% of the sales proceeds. The defendant's intervenor's intervenor accepted the instant abortion and sold them for 3,273,684,580 won in total through open competitive bidding and paid 2,488,00,270 won remaining after deducting 24% of the fees. The court below determined that the conversion disposal expenses that the plaintiff's association shall reimburse to the National Treasury pursuant to Article 35 of the Act on the Revenues and Food Industry and Article 25 (2) of the same Act and Article 25 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are the grounds for the revenue of the instant abortion x 20% of the sales proceeds of the entrusted goods x 3605,000 won / 3605,750

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Seoul Customs Director entered into with the defendant for the defendant for the issuance and consignment sale of seized goods includes sales management expenses, taxes and public charges, freight charges and warehouse charges for delivery and acceptance of the goods. According to the records, the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant's sale of the this case by open competitive bidding after entering into a contract for the collection and consignment sale of seized goods with the Seoul Customs Director for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant for the defendant's sale of the this case. Thus, the defendant's sale of the converted goods requires the payment of the freight charges and warehouse charges for the delivery and acceptance of the goods, and the defendant's sale of the goods to the defendant for the defendant's sale of the goods to the extent that the defendant's sale of the goods is not accompanied by the above conversion of the goods to the plaintiff's auction or sale of the goods.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)