압수물의 처리 및 환부제도에 관한 시론 = A Study on the Disposition of Seized Properties and Returning Procedures

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Seized properties are released from seizure only when the court decides not to order forfeiture at the sentencing stage. To protect property rights, our criminal procedure law describes the returning procedure of seized properties. When it is not necessary to keep the seized properties the return is mandatory, and it is also possible to return the seized property upon a claim for return by interested parties.
The Supreme Court has decided “Government’s duty to return the seized properties cannot be avoided even if the government directs the possible claimants to waive their claim” that the right to claim for return of seized properties cannot be waived, However the nature of this right and whether if it really cannot be waived, is quite in question.
Moreover, it is questionable whether returning the seized property is justified, when there is no legal basis to permanently forfeit the property but at the same time 1) it is highly likely that the property can be used for crime or pose a threat to the society, 2) the production and possession of the property is prohibited by the law, or 3) there is no actual profit to return the property. Being not possible to forfeit the property when the government decides not to prosecute is also a problem.
Even if the statute of limitation of a case has expired seized illegal properties should be subject to forfeiture. In this case, defendant can benefit from prompt termination of legal proceedings, by relinquishing the possession or the claim.
This research critically reviews the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, emphasizes the needs of various procedures and legal basis to respect the owner’s decision regarding the seized properties, and to permanently forfeiture the properties in certain circumstances when the owner agrees, and finally suggests a legislative solution about its conditions and procedures.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
• Ⅱ. 현행 형사소송법상 압수물 처리와 환부
• Ⅲ. 대법원 결정의 검토
• Ⅳ. 압수물 처리에 관한 각국의 입법례
• Ⅴ. 구체적 검토
• Ⅵ. 구체적인 입법안
• Ⅶ. 결론
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 신양균, "형사소송법" 법문사 414-, 2004

2 박균성, "행정법률(上)" 박영사 124-, 2007

3 조해섭, "압수물의 환부, 가환부" 대한변호사협회 (266) : 83-, 1998

4 한상훈, "압수물의 처리와 압수물 환부청구권" 고시연구사 29 (29): 76-, 2002

5 백형구, "압수물에 관한 이론적, 실무적 고찰" 18 : 313-, 1988

6 이상도, "압수물 환부청구권의 포기에 관하여" 형사실무연구회 1 : 297-, 2000

7 조균석, "압수물 환부청구권의 포기" 2 : 98-, 2003

8 정승환, "신형사소송법" 홍문사 20-, 2008

9 김희태, "수사도중의 권리포기를 근거로 한 압수물 환부거부의 가부" 형사실무연구회 1 : 260-, 2000

10 김희균, "민사몰수제도의 도입에 관한 연구" 한국피해자학회 19 (19): 57-80, 2011

11 박미숙, "독립제재로서의 범죄수익몰수제도" 한국형사정책연구원 98-, 2003

12 신동운, "간추린신형사소송법" 법문사 80-, 2007

13 田宮 裕, "搜査の構造" 有斐閣 330-, 1971

14 宇川春彦, "司法取引を考える(1)" 1583 : 31-, 1996

15 椎橋隆幸, "刑事免責制度について" 53 (53): 1-,

16 田口守一, "事件處理と自記決定" 41 (41): 78-, 2002

17 Löwe-Rosenberg, "Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz 2(§§ 76-136a)" Walter de Gruyter 98-, 2004

18 Hoffmann, "Rückgabe von im Straverfahren sichergestellten oder beschlagnahmten Gegenstände" 461-, 2000

19 "Criolek-Krepold 376 ff; Hoffmann/Knierim NStZ 2000 461ff"