Whether the goods whose seizure has been cancelled may be again seized for the purpose of criminal investigation conducted against accomplices when the seizure is deemed to have been cancelled due to the absence of a declaration of confiscation of the seized goods (affirmative)

In full view of the provisions of Articles 215, 219, and 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if necessary for criminal investigation, a public prosecutor may seize articles that are deemed as evidence or to be confiscated after obtaining a warrant from the court, and it is not possible to seize them only when the facts constituting a crime are acknowledged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, even if a seizure of articles seized from an offender is deemed to have been cancelled as there is no declaration of confiscation, if the seizure of such articles is still necessary for criminal investigation against an accomplice, or if it is possible to confiscate the articles in a trial against an accomplice, a public prosecutor may again seize the articles whose seizure has been removed.

Articles 106(1), 215, and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Attorney Lee Sang-hoon

Busan District Court Order 96No1 dated April 6, 1996

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 215, 219, and 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if necessary for criminal investigation, a prosecutor may seize articles that are deemed as evidence or to be confiscated after obtaining a warrant from the court, and it is not possible to seize them only when the facts constituting a crime are acknowledged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, even if the seizure of articles seized from an offender is deemed to have been cancelled as there is no declaration of confiscation, if the seizure of such articles is still necessary for criminal investigation against an accomplice, or if it is possible to confiscate the articles in a trial against an accomplice, a prosecutor may again seize the seized articles.

Therefore, even if the seizure of the seized article in the previous criminal trial against Quasi-Appellants is deemed to have been rescinded because it was not ordered to confiscate the seized article in this case, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the prosecutor again confiscated the seized article from the person other than the quasi-Appellants under suspicion of the relationship with quasi-Appellants and co-offenders.

The Prosecutor previously indicted quasi-Appellants on the part of 1 million U.N. among the seized articles of this case under the judgment that quasi-Appellants are not in the relation of the above case and co-offenders, and the court accepted the quasi-Appellants as it is, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, does not change.

In addition, inasmuch as the previous seizure of the seized article in this case by the quasi-Appellants as the suspect and the person to whom the seizure was to be carried out is deemed to have been rescinded due to the lack of a declaration of confiscation, and thus, became the same as having not been seized from the beginning, it cannot be deemed a double seizure to have again carried out the seizure of this case by designating the above person as the suspect, and the same holds true even if the seized article was actually kept in custody at

All of the grounds for reappeal are without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)