Scope of application of Article 12(2) of the National Security Act

Since the provision of Article 12(2) of the National Security Act (Article 16 of the Anti-Corruption Act) is an exception to the time when a person does not prosecute the offender, if a judgment of innocence becomes final and conclusive, the prosecutor's order to revert the same to the national treasury shall be unlawful and the State shall be liable for

Article 12 of the National Security Act, Article 16 of the Anti-Public Law

Supreme Court Decision 70Da829 delivered on July 28, 1970 (Daad 9041 delivered on July 28, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18BDu235 delivered on July 18, 197, and Article 12(1)1390 of the National Security Act

Plaintiff

Countries

Busan District Court (68Ga4152)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,000 won with the annual interest rate of 5% from the next day of service to the next day of service to the day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (1).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the facts stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (No. 1,2,3; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the parties' pleadings in the court below's criminal records (the evidence No. 1,2, and 3) without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff shall assist the members and meetings of anti-government organizations which have been sealed in Japan, and illegally exchanged money by receiving money and other valuables from them into Korea, and he was charged with the violation of anti-government organizations' activities, and then the defendant was convicted of the whole facts charged at the Busan District Court on March 7, 1967, but the Daegu High Court ordered the plaintiff to be guilty on July 4, 197, 2000, which was delivered by the plaintiff No. 1,500, and the fact that the plaintiff No. 2 was not found guilty on the ground that the plaintiff No. 960, Dec. 1, 2006, which had not been found guilty.

Article 12 (2) of the National Security Act (Article 16 of the Anti-Public Act) provides that the public prosecutor may order the seizure of seized documents or goods to the National Treasury even if the public prosecutor does not prosecute the offender, and it cannot be viewed as an exception to the Criminal Procedure Act that the seizure of the case may be ordered without returning it to the person against whom the seizure was made, even if the public prosecutor did not prosecute the offender by applying the illegality, and it does not mean that the public prosecutor has already ordered the above disposition ( regardless of the court decision). Accordingly, in this case, if the plaintiff was indicted as a crime of receiving money and valuables, etc. and the judgment became final and conclusive without the pronouncement of the confiscation of seized goods, the public prosecutor's order for the reversion of seized goods to the National Treasury cannot be deemed unlawful, and the defendant's assertion that the above disposition by the public prosecutor is groundless.

The defendant litigation performer is found guilty of the violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act against the plaintiff, even if the defendant's above acceptance of goods against the plaintiff was confirmed not guilty, so this case's seized goods should be confiscated as a matter of course pursuant to the provisions of Article 36-2 of the above Act, so the ownership of the goods should be reverted to the National Treasury. However, although this case's seized goods should be confiscated as a matter of course even if they are of the nature that they should be confiscated as necessary by the illegal act, it is the same as the above recognition that there is no judgment of forfeiture. Thus, this case's seized goods should be released and returned to the National Treasury

Thus, the defendant is ultimately obligated to return the above amount of the deposit, as the defendant gains a profit equivalent to the above amount of the deposit without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the above amount of the deposit.

The defendant litigation performer may correct the disposition of reversion to the National Treasury by the public prosecutor only in accordance with the procedure of the Criminal Procedure Act or the administrative law, and even if the plaintiff has the right to request the return of the above confiscated articles, the plaintiff's claim for this case is extinguished due to the lapse of the prescribed period under Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the plaintiff's claim for this case does not seek cancellation or change of the above disposition made by the public prosecutor, and Article 484 of the above Criminal Procedure Act does not seek cancellation or change of the

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from November 16, 1968 to the date of full payment of the above profits amounting to 220,000 won as well as the above profits amounting to 220,000 won against the defendant is obviously next to the above, and the original judgment is justified with this purport. Therefore, the original judgment is justified with this purport. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)