A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, was arrested and investigated by police officers while reporting advertisements made by police officers in the rice Luxembourg market and trying to sell smartphones of this case. This is an illegal investigation as a naval investigation, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case as evidence collected therefrom.

B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, and there is no evidence suggesting that the criminal of this case was caused by an investigative agency to commit a crime by inducing a person who does not have the original criminal intent by means of deception or attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7680, Nov. 29, 2007). However, there is no evidence suggesting that the criminal of this case was caused by the investigative agency, and the criminal of this case of this case was already completed at the time when the defendant brought the victim to his/her intention to have his/her lost cell phone. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the court below sentenced a fine reduced than the summary order, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no change of circumstances that the court below and the punishment are different from the summary order, and in full view of all the matters on the sentencing as stated in the records and arguments of this case, the court below's punishment is deemed appropriate, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.