The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

The judgment below

Goods described in one list of crimes shall be forfeited.

The collection shall be made.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that rendered an additional collection on this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the defendant's custody of the goods stated in Paragraph (1) of the crime of this case does not constitute "when confiscation is impossible".

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The main text of Article 282(2) of the Customs Act provides that the goods owned or possessed by an offender shall be forfeited in cases falling under Article 269(2) and (3) or Article 274(1)1 of the same Act, which are determined as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the main text of Article 282(3) of the same Act provides that when the whole or part of the goods to be forfeited under Article 282(1) and (2) of the same Act cannot be forfeited, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of offense of the goods not forfeited shall

A court or an investigative agency may, if necessary, seize evidence or articles that are deemed to have been confiscated, but the confiscation is not limited to articles that have been confiscated (see Supreme Court Decision 76Do4001, May 24, 197). The fact that the articles subject to confiscation are seized and that the seizure is made through lawful procedures is not a requirement of confiscation.

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do705 delivered on May 30, 2003). The defendant's custody of each of the goods listed in the annexed list 1 of the court below's judgment related to the crime No. 1 of the crime committed in the judgment below is recognized, and since the goods subject to confiscation are not always limited to the seized goods, the above goods should be sentenced not to collection, but to confiscation punishment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not sentence the forfeiture of each of the above goods and additionally collected the value thereof.