A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the part of the facts charged in this case as to the mediation of the purchase and sale of phiphones caused a criminal intent of arranging the trade of phiphones due to an investigation by an investigative agency. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comparing to the fact that the act of arranging the purchase and sale of phiphones is a crime of arranging the purchase and sale of phiphones (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1203, Apr. 23, 2009). Further, in the event that the investigative agency acts as a broker or convenience between the parties who intend to trade phiphones by arranging the purchase and sale of phiphones (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1203, Apr. 23, 2009). In addition, in order to arrest a criminal by inducing the purchase and sale of phiphones (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1203, Apr. 23, 2009). In addition, in the event that the trading of phiphones is not actually formed between the parties or the parties who intend to trade phiphones, and thus, it is necessary to comprehensively consider how to induce the person to commit an illegal act, how to punish him/her, and how to punish it.

Therefore, by taking advantage of personal-friendly relationship with the induceee, the inducer, who is directly related to the investigation agency, appeals to the dynamics or emotions of the induced person, is unable to take advantage of, or refuse gold psychological pressure or threats, or money to be used for the crime by specifically presenting the method of the crime.