Quasi-Appellants

1. On October 19, 2016, the prosecutor of the Incheon District Court revoked a provisional return refusal disposition against seized articles listed in the separate sheet.

2. The prosecutor of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office shall, after taking photographs or other measures to preserve their original forms, temporarily return the seized articles to quasi-Appellants;

The prosecutor of the order 1 and the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office shall temporarily return the seized articles to the appellant.

According to the records, the quasi-Appellants can be found to have been confiscated for the purpose of using only evidence and the quasi-Appellants need to use it. Thus, Article 282(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the goods owned or possessed by the criminal shall be forfeited in the case of Article 269(2) and (3) of the Customs Act." Under the interpretation of the above provision, the goods occupied by the criminal shall be confiscated in relation to the criminal who is tried on trial, regardless of who is the owner's good faith or bad faith (see Supreme Court Order 92Mo22, Sept. 18, 1992). Meanwhile, the effect of the judgment imposing confiscation on the goods owned by a third party other than the defendant shall not be affected by the quasi-Appellants' decision, such as lack of evidence in relation to the criminal suspect who was convicted of the facts underlying the confiscation in principle, and there shall not be no influence on the quasi-Appellants' ownership in the case of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1969, Sept. 16, 1999).

[Attachment]

Judge Seo-man