Article 4(3) of the Stows Control Act provides that "any remuneration received or promised in the case of paragraph (2) shall be confiscated, and if it is impossible to confiscate it, its value shall be collected." In light of the purport of this provision and the legislative purpose of the Stows Control Act (Article 1), confiscation and additional collection under the Stows Control Act, unlike the case of the general criminal law, shall be deemed to have the character of punitive sanctions against the crime. Thus, if it is impossible to confiscate the remuneration received or promised in collusion with many people for the crime but it is impossible to confiscate it, the full amount of the remuneration shall be collected from all the accomplices.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to additional collection under the Stows Control Act.

In addition, the court below's assertion that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to double punishment or joint principal offense as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and that punishment is too heavy in this case where imprisonment for less than 10 years is sentenced, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)