Residential LEE DoE

Reference domicile Daegu MEE II

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, it is not allowed that the inducer, who is directly related to the investigation agency, appeals to the ruling or appraisal of the inducer by taking advantage of personal-friendly relationship with the inducer, or by causing or refusing monetary or psychological pressure, threats, etc., or by excessively participating in the crime by presenting the method of the crime and providing the money to be used for the crime, etc. However, it is not allowed as an illegal under the illegal under the circumstances where the inducer merely requested the inducer to commit the crime more repeatedly without direct relation with the investigation agency, and the investigation agency cannot be deemed to have used the means of deception or attack, etc., even if the cause of the crime was caused, it does not constitute an illegal under the crime investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2339, Jul. 12, 2007).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that it was illegal since it was a naval investigation, and convicted the defendant as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the attempted delivery of Handphones in the judgment of the court below, on the grounds that the defendant in this case was not aware of the fact prior to the end of the crime of purchasing the Handphones in this case or that the investigation agency could not directly induce the defendant to commit the criminal act. In light of the above legal principles

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts as to naval investigations as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below found that the defendant purchased 10,000 g of 10,000 from co-defendants at the court of first instance upon request of the defendant to purchase phiphones, and that he was on board to deliver them to his hand, and the police officers belonging to the Incheon Police Station who was divingd with his hand notified of the fact that he was trying to get on his hand and deliver phiphones to his hand, the defendant tried to open the above 10-day driver's seat and clouds and clouds for emergency arrest of the defendant, and the defendant tried to open the above 3-day driver's seat and clouds for the purpose of removing 10 g of phiphones from the above clouds at the court of first instance, and the defendant appeared to have been aware of the above clouds at the court below's decision after being sentenced to the above clouds of clouds for the purpose of restoring the clouds to Busan Hospital.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "Medication" under Article 60 (1) 3 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Go-chul

Chief Justice Kim Ji-hyung -

Justices Lee Jae-chul