Whether confiscation under Article 73 of the Fisheries Act violates the Constitution or not.

A. The provisions of Article 73 of the former Fisheries Act (Act No. 1321, Apr. 11, 63) provided that the property owned by a third party, not owned by the defendant, etc. may be confiscated does not violate Article 20 of the former Constitution (amended by Act No. 62. 26, Dec. 26, 62).

B. Under the former Constitution (amended on December 26, 62.12.26), the court issued an explanation that the court had the right to review the unconstitutionality of the ex post facto benefit by denying the ex post facto benefit and having the right to review the unconstitutionality of the ex post facto benefit. Thus, the court below did not err in its determination that the provisions of Article 73 of the former Fisheries Act (amended on September 9, 53. 29. 62. 26. 26. 20) are contrary to Article 20 of the former Constitution, but can confiscate the goods owned by a third party. The court's decision is that the provisions of Article 73 of the same Act are not null and void, but the said provisions are a provision

Article 102 of the Constitution, Article 361-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 73 of the Fisheries Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Do653 Decided February 23, 1965

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Jeju District Court Decision 66No23 delivered on September 12, 1966, Jeju District Court Decision 66No23 delivered on September 12, 1966

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The chief prosecutor of the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office examines the grounds for appeal by prosecutors.

According to Articles 364(2) and 361-5 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court may decide ex officio on the grounds of violation of the Constitution, law, order or rule which affected the judgment, even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the statement of grounds for appeal. Thus, the appellate court may decide ex officio on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, the court below did not err in holding that the defendants submitted the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, but the court below decided on whether to confiscate the property owned by a third party, which is not the ownership of the defendant, etc., and Article 102 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court can finally examine the judgment when the judgment is based on the premise that the law is in violation of the Constitution. Thus, the court below decided that the provisions of Article 73 of the Fisheries Act are in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution, but it cannot be said that there is an error in the judgment of the court below that the provisions of Article 9-2 of the Fisheries Act in the judgment of the court below should not be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 64Do653, Feb. 23, 19, 19, etc.).

Therefore, by applying Articles 391 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision Do-dong (Presiding Justice)