(a) Disposition of seizure by a public prosecutor with a warrant issued by the court and revocation under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

B. Disposition of seizure of articles to be confiscated for the following reasons under Article 199(1) of the Customs Act and cancellation under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

(a) Any seizure conducted by a judicial police officer with the warrant of a court may be subject to revocation pursuant to this Article;

B. Even if the seized vessel is of the nature that should be confiscated in the future under Article 199 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act, it shall not be deemed unlawful on the ground that the court does not necessarily have to seize it and revoked the seizure disposition.

Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 199 of the Customs Act

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 67No1 delivered on November 10, 1967

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Re-Appellant's ground for reappeal is examined.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

The reasoning of the court below is that the court below's reasoning stated that "an urgent seizure at the wharf of a female customs office on October 20, 1967 and a continuous seizure upon the issuance of a search and seizure warrant" is not a court's seizure but a court's seizure (see Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act) and that the judicial police officer's seizure upon the court's warrant."

The original decision is just, and there is no error of law in the original decision that such a disposition may be subject to revocation under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

Even though the vessel seized in this case refers to the goods of the nature that need to be confiscated in the future in accordance with Article 199 subparag. 1 of the Customs Act, the lower court does not necessarily deem that it is necessary to seize such goods. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and therefore, the lower court’s revocation of the above seizure disposition does not have any empty goods in violation of Article 199 of the Customs Act, Articles 219 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, this reappeal shall be dismissed on the ground that it is groundless.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Yang Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)