The court below affirmed the first instance court that it is difficult to view that the controlling police officer had caused the criminal intent of the defendant by using the "ethic act" or "comfort", etc., and thus, it is difficult to view that the control police officer had caused the criminal intent of the defendant by using the "ethic act" or "comfort", etc., on the ground that it appears that the defendant had been constantly engaged in sexual traffic, and that the defendant refused the demand of the controlling police officer for sexual traffic due to concerns over the crackdown at the time, and that the controlling police officer asked the defendant about whether to arrange sexual traffic and did not specifically suggest the method of crime. At the time, the defendant had already been a real criminal intent or at least a potential abstract criminal intent for the arrangement of sexual traffic, and in such a situation, the controlling police officer could not be deemed to have provided the defendant with an opportunity to commit the crime,

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the illegal investigation of naval vessels or by violating the rules of evidence.

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