A. (1) In order to arrest an investigative agency, not for the purpose of regulating the act of arranging sexual traffic, but for arresting the E of Chinese nationality, the investigator solicits E by deceiving the investigator into the customer with the intent of arresting the E of the Chinese nationality, and then, the public prosecution of this case was instituted by using the monetary content of the Defendant stored in the E mobile phone as evidence for the act of arranging sexual traffic. As such, the public prosecution of this case is null and void as it is an illegal naval investigation, and the evidence

(2) The Defendant did not arrange sexual traffic to E at the time indicated in the crime sight list as indicated in the lower judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, a naval investigation means an investigation method that arrests a criminal by inducing a person who does not have the original criminal intent to commit an offense by means of deception, attack, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed a naval investigation if it is merely an arrest of a criminal by providing a person who has the criminal intent with an opportunity to commit an offense, or by simply providing a person with an intentional intent, trick, attack, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4532 Decided July 26, 2007). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under Paragraph (1) of “the judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.” In comparison with the evidential materials, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below is difficult to deem that an illegal naval investigation was conducted during the process of arresting E, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was procedural error in collecting the monetary content between the Defendant and the defense counsel as evidence.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) The assertion that there is no arrangement for sexual traffic.