Forfeiture is a property punishment that deprives a crime-related property for the purpose of preventing the repetition of a crime or preventing it from profiting from the crime. In addition, Confiscation is a Judicial disposition to pay for the whole or part of the forfeitured object if it can not be forfeitured.
Article 48 of the Korean Penal Code stipulates forfeiture and confiscation, and stipulates arbitrary. However, Article 134 of the Criminal Code (money to be paid to a bribe or bribe received by a criminal or a third person who knows the criminal in bribery), Article 206 of the Criminal Code (opium, opium, morphine), Article 357 (3) of the Penal Code (the property acquired by the criminal) and many special laws require forfeiture and confiscation as essential.
In regard to such general forfeiture and confiscation, the Supreme Court refers to the forfeiture and confiscation in some special act as ‘disciplinary forfeiture and confiscation’ for the purpose of punishing without aiming at the deprivation of profits in light of the purpose of the legislation and the purpose of the legislation. and in the case of ‘disciplinary forfeiture and confiscation’, it acknowledges the collective responsibility of confiscation.
In this article, I will review critically on what the Supreme Court has called ‘disciplinary confiscation’ for the forfeiture and confiscation of foreign exchange transaction act, and examine the problems of collective responsibility of confiscation.

[대상판결] 대법원 2017. 5. 31. 선고 2013도8389 판결
  [사실관계]
  [판결요지]
  [관련판결] 대법원 1998. 5. 21. 선고 95도2002 전원합의체 판결
 [연 구]
  Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
  Ⅱ. 외국환거래법상 징벌적 추징의 타당성 검토
  Ⅲ. 외국환거래법상 공동연대추징의 문제점
  Ⅳ. [대상판결] 사안의 검토 ― 외국환거래법상의 추징에 대하여 견해를 변경한 것인가? ―
 [참고문헌]
 [Abstract]

• 김대원(성균관대학교 법학전문대학원) | Kim Dae-Won (School of Law, Sungkyunkwan University)