The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

A. The indictment of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine is based on an illegal undercover operation, and its procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of law.

B. The lower court’s punishment (the number of months of imprisonment, No. 3) is too unreasonable in that it is too unreasonable for the sentencing.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. Although the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the Defendant received a request from B to request the Mebacule (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) which is a local mental medicine, and conspired to purchase approximately 10,000 gramlopon from D, along with the Defendant’s wife C, with 1.8 million won.

According to the above public offering, the Defendant, along with C on January 23, 2017, moved from the E-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with C, purchased approximately KRW 9.47 gramphones from D with approximately KRW 1.8 million.

B. The Defendant alleged in the lower court that the instant public prosecution constituted an illegal naval investigation, and recognized all the facts charged on the fourth public trial day of the lower court, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the said facts charged on the basis of the evidence indicated in its holding.

(c)

A naval investigation that induces a person who does not have the original criminal intent to commit a crime by using deceptive means, schemes, etc. and arrests the criminal is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1247, Oct. 28, 2005, etc.). The issue of whether a person constitutes an illegal naval investigation in a specific case is the type and nature of the relevant crime, the status and role of the person who has induced, and the details and method of inducement.