beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.
Seized evidence 2, 3, and 4 shall be confiscated from the accused.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The lower court, contrary to the first instance court, confiscated the instant confiscated article on the ground that subparagraph 9 of seized evidence (one smartphone; hereinafter “instant seized article”) constitutes “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, but it is not acceptable for the following reasons.
Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" as objects that may be confiscated. Here, "goods provided for an act of crime" refers to goods used for an act of crime or goods used for an act closely related to an act of crime, and "goods provided for an act of crime" refers to goods that have been prepared to be used for an act of crime but have not been actually used.
In addition, in light of the fact that the confiscation under the Criminal Code is a sentence imposed in addition to other punishment in the conviction against the defendant under criminal trial against the facts charged, what kind of goods is “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” should be related to the relevant facts charged.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the police officer discovered the seized article of this case possessed by the defendant at the time of the emergency arrest of the defendant from the Manyang-si located in the Manyang-si on March 14, 2014 and confirmed the text message, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant provided or attempted to provide the seized article of this case as evidence due to the circumstance of trading a philop with another person, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the police officer provided or attempted to provide the seized article of this case to each criminal act that the court below found guilty.
Therefore, the seizure of this case from the defendant is confiscated.