In case of sale of seized articles in accordance with Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act, whether the confiscation of the proceeds of the sale shall be made (affirmative)

Where seized articles subject to forfeiture in accordance with Article 198(2) of the Customs Act are sold and the proceeds are kept in custody in accordance with Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act because they are likely to be destroyed, damaged, or decomposed, or have difficulty in keeping them, the proceeds kept in custody may be deemed as the same as the seized articles subject to forfeiture in relation to the confiscation.

Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 48 of the Criminal Act, Article 198(2) of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do886 Delivered on September 20, 1966

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yang Chang-hoon

Gwangju High Court Decision 96No330 delivered on September 11, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. 50 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for the defendant.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

Examining the evidence admitted by the judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the records, the court below's decision that recognized the defendant as the co-defendant 1, 2, 3, and the non-indicted 1 as the co-defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1 as to each of the crimes in this case is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to this issue, and it is obvious that the judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant to the punishment of KRW 1,00,000, which was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months and a fine of KRW 100,000 cannot be a legitimate ground

The court below is justified in taking the above measures of the court below since the above measures of the court below are legitimate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to Article 48 of the Criminal Act, Article 198 of the Customs Act, Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 132 of the Customs Act, Article 132 of the Customs Act, and Article 132 of the Customs Act, Article 198 (2) of the Customs Act, as it is obvious that the proceeds of the smuggling sold in accordance with Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act had been confiscated from the defendant by applying Article 198 (2) of the Customs Act to the proceeds of the smuggling. There is no reason to see this Opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)