2024년 형법전면개정연구위원회의 몰수규정 개정안의 함의 -독립몰수 도입과 관련한 논의 방향의 재설정-

The purpose of this article is to point out that simply excluding confiscation from the types of punishment and accepting the ‘Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation’ without discussing the possibility of the existence of the ‘third track measures’ and the possibility of incorporating the security measures and the ‘third-track measures’ into the Korean Criminal Code, as the legal nature of confiscation and the recognition of the ‘Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation’ are closely related, can lead to a result that is not in line with the theory and system of criminal law. First, we must recognize the difficulty of having to choose between ‘if confiscation is excluded from punishment, the ‘Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation’ can be fully accepted, but theoretical and systematic problems may arise regarding the establishment of the concept of the security measures and the ‘third-track measures’ and whether to introduce them into the Criminal Code’ and ‘if confiscation is considered a punishment, we can escape the burden of such theoretical argumentation, but the ‘Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation’ is hardly accepted.’ Confiscation is a measure that can have both a penal nature and a security nature depending on its object, purpose, and the subject of confiscation, so it should be classified as the ‘third-track measure.’ Then, the ‘Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation’ can be accepted without restrictions. As a prerequisite, the Criminal Code should be comprehensively reorganized by incorporating the ‘third-track measures’ or the security measures into the Criminal Code.