[2] The case holding that a cashier's check or cash which was not remitted at the time of arrest is merely an object to be provided for a crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act committed on the condition that the cashier's check or cash, which had not been transferred at the time of arrest, cannot be viewed as "an object to be provided for the crime" of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions

[2] The case holding that the cashier's checks or cash which were not remitted at the time of arrest are only those to be provided for the crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and cannot be viewed as "those to be provided for the crime" of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, which was previously committed, and thus cannot be confiscated.

1. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that forfeited the seized article on the ground that: (a) Nos. 8 and 15 of the seized evidence (hereinafter “instant seized articles”) constituted “goods intended to be provided for an act of crime” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

2. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for "goods which have been, or have been, provided for an act of crime" as objects that can be confiscated. Here, "goods which were intended to be provided for an act of crime" refers to goods which were prepared to be used for the act of crime 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 under a criminal trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da12161, May 11, 199) in a judgment of conviction against the defendant who is under a criminal trial, any goods are "goods which are intended to be provided for an act of crime" and the said goods must be recognized as those which

In light of the above legal principles and records, the facts charged of this case which the court below found guilty is that "the defendant did not report to the Minister of Finance and Economy 46 times from April 20, 2007 to July 24 of the same year, and remitted each amount to the Chinese traffic bank account, and paid each of the money to the non-resident who is the party to the transaction using the resident's name who is not the party to the transaction." When the defendant was arrested on July 24, 2007, the seizure of this case was attempted to transfer it to the Chinese bank's account in the same manner as the crime of violation of the above Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, but did not transfer it to the Chinese bank's account, and even if the same kind of crime was committed by the seizure of this case, it is separate from the crime of violation of each Foreign Exchange Transactions Act which was found guilty. Thus, the seizure of this case can not be viewed as a seizure from the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below upheld the judgment of the court of first instance which confiscated the seized article on the grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “goods which were intended to be provided for criminal acts” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

3. The Defendant appealed to the entire judgment of the court below, but did not submit the grounds of appeal as to the remainder of the seized article other than the confiscated part.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding confiscation is reversed. Since this part of the judgment of the court below is sufficient to be judged directly by this court based on the records and the evidence examined by the court and the court below up to the original trial, it is decided to see Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act. For the above reasons, since the court of first instance could not confiscate the seized article of this case from the defendant for the above reasons, the part concerning the confiscation of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be reversed, and since the part concerning the confiscation of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be reversed, the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 seized from the defendant shall be confiscated,

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)