(a) The case holding that, in case of seizure by voluntary submission of two gold bars, the gold bars, which were purchased by the door-to-door operator, were delivered to the store and opened locked, and the gold bars, which were delivered to the store by the door-to-door operator, were seized;

B. In a case where a prosecutor indicted a case on the grounds that the head of a foreign gold bullion confiscated at any time and by whom it is unknown, and thus the prosecutor’s disposition suspending the prosecution (negative) and whether it is necessary to continue the seizure (negative)

A. The re-appellant, who had received money from the customer who was sent to the re-appellant on a multiple occasions before the re-appellant, sent money online and purchased the money from the customer who was sent to the re-appellant, and the re-appellant opened the re-appellant by opening the re-appellant and opened it. If the re-appellant voluntarily submitted 2 gold tamps in this context, and thus seized by evidence, it cannot be deemed that the re-appellant was delivered to the non-appellant, and the above gold tamps were seized between the time prior to delivery or the time he received delivery.

B. The seized gold bars are not presumed to have been imported as a matter of course on the ground that they were produced in a foreign country, and if a prosecutor indicted a case on the grounds that at any time and at any time, it cannot be readily concluded that the seized gold bars were imported as a matter of customs duty, and thus the seizure cannot be deemed to have been carried out to the National Treasury, and no further need to continue to exist.

Articles 133 and 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 198 of the Customs Act

B. Supreme Court Order 84Mo61 Dated December 21, 1984 (Gong1985,447) dated December 14, 1988 8Mo55 Dated December 14, 198 (Gong1989,721)

Re-appellant

Attorney Lee E-soo

Seoul Criminal Court Order 90 Assistant3 dated January 21, 1991

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul Criminal Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, since 2 re-appellants, which are seized articles at issue in this case, are not produced in Korea, and they are presumed to be no longer imported gold bars, and when the re-appellants sold gold bars to Seoul Customs office, he immediately concealed his whereabouts, and closed the gold door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door to the above re-appellants' purchase of the above gold door door door door, and the re-appellants' purchase of the above gold door door door door door door door door door door to the above tweet door door door door door door door door door door, the above re-appellants' sale of the above gold door door door to the above tweet and the above tweet door door door door door door, which were the above tweet's prior to the above tweet's sale of the above gold paper.

2. However, in light of the record, there is no evidence to view that the re-appellant was seized before the delivery from the delivery source of the re-appellant.

According to the record of search and seizure, the above gold bars, which were issued by the Seoul Customs Office, were confirmed to have been delivered to the bank of the re-appellant. The re-appellant's office opened the above gold 2 gold grams opened together with the re-appellant's office and seized them as evidence (record 10,11). According to the search and seizure list, the person subject to seizure and the owner are the re-appellant (record 12 pages), according to the suspect's examination as to the prosecutor or senior judicial police officer's duty preparation, the re-appellant is trying to open the above grams after delivery of the above grams. The re-appellant opened the gate and opened it. The re-appellant was engaged in a transaction to receive the above grams from the non-appellant over several occasions before the re-appellant, and the re-appellant was transferred from the Seoul Customs Office to the non-appellant's office to receive the above gold 200,300 won or 200 won (the above Gaum 16, 20010 won).

3. Also, the gold bullion is not presumed to have been imported as a matter of course on the ground that it was produced in a foreign country. This does not necessarily mean that, at any time even at the time of a foreign country, if a prosecutor taken a disposition to suspend indictment as to the case, since it cannot be readily concluded that it was a customs breach, the seized article cannot be attributed to the National Treasury, and it is not necessary to continue seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 84Mo61, Dec. 21, 1984; Order 88Mo55, Dec. 14, 1988).

Examining the record, even if two gold bars of this case were not produced in Korea, there is no evidence to conclude that the person other than the reappeal sold to the re-appellant is the principal offender of the duty evasion, and even if the re-appellant is currently missing, it cannot be recognized as such, and there is no other evidence to find who is the principal offender.

4. Therefore, the court below erred in holding that the gold leader of this case was an item subject to confiscation and was not delivered to the re-appellant with only the materials indicated in the records of this case, and the argument that points this out is with merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)