beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.
the Bank of Korea, seized, 200,000,000 won (No. 1).
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the punishment of imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the forfeiture of evidence Nos. 1 to 3) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court rendered ex officio determination on forfeiture: (a) declared forfeiture to the effect that one of the seized glass cups (No. 3) constitutes “goods intended to be provided for criminal conduct” as prescribed by Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.
Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that “goods that have been, or are to be, provided for a criminal act” as objects that may be confiscated. In this context, “goods provided for a criminal act” refers to goods used for the criminal act or goods used for an act closely related to the act of committing a crime, and “goods that are to be provided for a criminal act” refers to goods that have been prepared to be used for a criminal act but have not been actually used.
In addition, in light of the fact that the confiscation under the Criminal Act is a sentence imposed in addition to another sentence in the conviction against the defendant under criminal trial against the facts charged, it must be related to the crime in question where the articles are found guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.). According to the above legal principles and records, the facts charged of this case which the court below found guilty is that "the paper sent by the defendant to the head of Seocho-gu Office on August 18, 2016 and expressed the intention to give a bribe in relation to the duties of the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu," and subparagraph 3 of the evidence cannot be deemed to be a thing that has been provided or intended to be provided with a bribe in relation to the crime with the indication of intent to give a bribe as found guilty, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation.