A. Of the facts charged against the Defendant claiming the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the attempt to arrange for phiphones is made by an illegal investigation by an investigative agency.

C When undergoing an investigation by the investigative agency on September 4, 2018, C stated that the liability to supply narcotics was the defendant, and received the purchase price for narcotics from the investigative agency to make the defendant be the defendant.

At the time, the Defendant could not request C to recover narcotics several times, but C requested C to continue to do so, and on September 9, 2018, 1.6 million won received from C as the price for narcotics was immediately sought to return it.

Therefore, this part of the indictment is illegal.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 500,00) against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination 1 on the argument of the crime against a person who does not have the original criminal intent of the relevant legal doctrine is unlawful. In a specific case, the determination of whether an investigation agency constitutes an illegal crime should be made by taking into account the type and nature of the crime in question, the status and role of the inducer, the background and method of inducing the inducer, the response of the inducer following the inducement, the punishment history of the inducer and the illegality of the inducing act itself, etc. Even if the inducer did not have a direct relation with the investigation agency, if the investigating agency merely requested the inducer more than once to commit the crime without any direct relation with the investigation agency, and it does not constitute an unlawful crime investigation even if the cause of the crime by the inducer was caused (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2339 Decided July 12, 207).