[1] The meaning of "property acquired from a criminal act under Article 50 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Forfeiture of Illegal Political Funds, Etc." and "property acquired from a criminal act under Article 50 of the former Anti

[2] The case holding that an order of preservation for confiscation under Article 22 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, etc. shall be revoked on the ground that the property acquired by a public official, who is not a public official under Article 2 of the Public Official Election Act, does not fall under the property subject to confiscation under Article 3 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, etc.

[1] In full view of the legislative intent and purpose of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, etc., the phrase and contents of the relevant provisions, etc., the phrase “property acquired from criminal acts under Article 50 of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act (repealed by Act No. 8878 of Feb. 29, 2008 and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and Civil Rights Commission)” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act means only property acquired from criminal acts under Article 50 of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act, which are committed by a public official who is not a public official for election purposes under Article 2 of the Public Official Election Act. Accordingly, the property acquired from criminal acts under Article 50 of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act, which is subject to confiscation under Article 50(3) of the same Act, but is not subject to confiscation order under Article 3 of the same Act.

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant, who is a public official of local administration of viewing, obtained real estate from a third party in the planned development area using the Si development information that he/she became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties and is prosecuted as a crime of violation of Article 50 of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act (repealed by Act No. 8878 of Feb. 29, 2008 and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act), and the court issued an order of preservation for forfeiture to prohibit disposal of the real estate pursuant to Article 22 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, etc., the order of preservation for forfeiture under Article 22 of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act for forfeiture of the real estate acquired by the defendant who is not a public official of election under Article 2 of the

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1, Articles 3, and 22 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, Etc.; Article 50 of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act (repealed by Act No. 8878 of Feb. 29, 2008 and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission) (see current Article 86 of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission); Article 2 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 1, 3, and 22 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, etc.; Article 50 of the former Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act (repealed by Act No. 8878 of Feb. 29, 2008 and Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Establishment and Management of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission)

Defendant

[Defendant-Appellant] 1 and 4 others (Law Firm Oyn, Attorney final one-way et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 2008Ro99 dated February 11, 2009

The order of the court below shall be reversed, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. In the case of the claim for preservation for confiscation in Suwon District Court 2007 early 116, the order of preservation for confiscation on each real estate listed in the list (attached Form) shall be revoked.

Judgment ex officio is made.

The purpose of Article 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, Etc. (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) is to ex officio prevent the creation of illegal political funds, etc. and enhance the transparency of political funds by providing for special cases concerning the confiscation of illegal political funds. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “illegal political funds, etc.” means the property acquired by a public official who takes office through an election under Article 45 (a) of the Political Funds Act or Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 or 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 50 of the former Anti-Corruption Act (b) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, etc., and Article 3 of the same Act provides that “property acquired by a public official who takes office through an election under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Public Official Election Act shall not be subject to confiscation of illegal political funds, i.e., illegal political funds, etc., an order under Article 50 of the former Public Official Election Act.

According to the records, the defendant, as a public official of class 7 of local administration of ○○○ City, who was aware of in the course of performing his duties, had the re-appellant, who was a third party, acquire each real estate listed in the list of the planned development area (attached Form) (hereinafter "each real estate of this case"), using the development information of the specialized development project plan of ○○ City, which is a secret of class 7 in the course of performing his duties, and committed a crime under Article 50 of the former Prevention of Corruption Act. In criminal cases where the defendant was prosecuted for the above criminal facts, the court issued an order of preservation for confiscation under Article 22 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Preservation for Confiscation (hereinafter "the order of preservation for confiscation of this case"). Thus, the defendant is not a public official of class 7 of local administration of ○○○ City, and each real estate of this case, which was acquired by the defendant, and therefore, the order of preservation for confiscation of this case

Nevertheless, the lower court maintained the first instance court’s ruling dismissing the re-appellant’s application for cancellation of the order of preservation for confiscation. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of confiscation under the Act, thereby adversely affecting

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for the court to render a direct judgment, and as seen earlier, the decision of the court of first instance is unfair, and thus, the order of preservation for confiscation of this case is revoked and it is unlawful, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)