Cases where the disposition of return of seized articles by a prosecutor is revoked on the ground that the reason for return is not clear;

The reason for return in Article 134 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the case where the victim under private law has the right to request the delivery of the seized article, and in fact, in the case where there is a doubt about the above right to claim delivery, even if there is a legal size, it cannot be said that there is a clear reason for return. Thus, in case where the article is seized while being kept in custody without knowing that it is an stolen acquired by fraud, the custodian of the article has the right of retention until he is paid the deposit fee. Thus, it cannot be said that the victim has the right to request the return of the seized article.

Article 134 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Quasi-Appellants

Seoul Criminal District Court Order (84No1 Decision)

Supreme Court Order 84Mo38 Decided July 16, 1984

The Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office's appeal 1 against the appellant on April 17, 1984 with respect to the case No. 1196 of pressure of the same public Prosecutor's Office 196 shall revoke the disposition that the appellant shall return Ghana 22,728 Ga, the appellant's custody, to 2 other than the appellant's appeal.

The gist of the quasi-Appellant's grounds of appeal is that the prosecutor of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office shall return 22,728 Ghana, which was confiscated by evidence No. 1169 of the case No. 1169 of pressure No. 1984 to the quasi-Appellant No. 22 of the same month on April 1984, and the quasi-Appellant's custody shall be notified to the Quasi-Appellant on the 17th of the same month. The above judgment is confiscated by the quasi-Appellant's custody at the same time after being deposited from the non-Appellant's office No. 3 of the quasi-Appellant's appeal and the Quasi-Appellant's custody is kept under custody with the request for custody, and as at the end of March 1984, the quasi-Appellant's custody should be subject to the above non-Appellant's custody from the above non-Appellant's 9,929,468, and the prosecutor's right to deposit the above non-Appellant's charges shall be revoked, and the prosecutor's right to deposit the above non-Appellant's appeal shall be dismissed.

Therefore, since the Seoul Criminal Court 84No290 delivered by the public health party members' request for return to the re-appellant (84Da2218, Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office 84 type 23186), the records of the case, such as forgery of private documents, are as follows. On December 20, 1983, the non-appeal 3 purchased it to the non-Appellant 2 without any intention and ability to pay it, and the non-appellant 22,728 items delivered to the non-Appellant 4, which were the above non-Appellant's warehouse and kept the non-appellant's warehouse over the same month. Thus, it is evident that the non-appellant's request for return of the above non-appellant's article was legitimate and it is hard to view that the non-appellant's right to claim return of the article without any justifiable reason to the non-appellant's request for return of the article.

Accordingly, it is decided as per Disposition by the public prosecutor and 1 to revoke the disposition of return of this case.

Judges Kim Jong-he (Presiding Judge)