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.