Criteria for determining whether or not to temporarily return seized articles to be used in evidence

Whether or not to temporarily return the seized articles to be produced as evidence under Article 133 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 219 of the same Act, shall be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances such as the appearance and seriousness of the crime, the value of the seized articles as evidence, the concealment, destruction, risk of damage, the obstruction of the investigation or public trial, the degree of disadvantage of the person to whom the seized articles are seized, etc.

Article 219 (Article 133 (1) of Criminal Procedure Act)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 92Mo22 dated September 18, 1992 (Gong1992, 3179)

Re-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-soo

Busan District Court Order 94No1 dated June 3, 1994

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Reviewing the reasoning of the order of the court below in light of the records, the court below is just and justified in holding that the seizure of the goods of this case, which are considered to be confiscated as well as articles which are deemed to be evidence (Article 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and that there is no illegality of failing to meet the requirements for the protocol that seizes the goods of this case, which are considered to be evidence of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (customs duties) against the number of suspects, etc. in the judgment, and the argument of the lawsuit alone cannot be viewed as an unlawful disposition exceeding the necessary minimum limit or an abuse of the authority to execute compulsory disposition. Thus, there is no reason to hold that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provision of Article 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the disposition of

2. Whether to temporarily return seized articles to be produced as evidence under Article 133(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 219 of the same Act, shall be determined by comprehensively examining various circumstances such as the appearance and seriousness of the crime, the value of the seized articles as evidence, the concealment, destruction and damage of the seized articles, the risk of being damaged, the existence of interference with the investigation or public trial, the degree of disadvantage of the person subject to seizure, etc. (see Supreme Court Order 92Mo2 delivered on September 18, 1992).

According to the records, the above case can peep the suspect's suspicion, and it seems necessary to use the seized article in this case. However, since the seizure article in this case is 11,675 met with the sports ground attached by forging another's registered trademark, and it is difficult for the re-appellant to continue to use it even in case where the provisional return decision is made, the seizure becomes effective / since the person who received provisional return is obliged to submit the seized article immediately at the request of the court, and even if the owner bears the duty to keep it, he cannot dispose of it. Thus, even if it is placed under the custody of the investigation agency, it does not appear that the re-appellant would suffer any disadvantage. Furthermore, according to the contents of the seizure report compiled in the records, the re-appellant does not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above seizure article 15,648 met, which appears to be an illegal article, and it does not need to be ruled that the court below's dismissal of it before the quasi-Appellant's dismissal of the seized article in this case.

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)