A. The Defendant was guilty of committing the instant crime at the need of the police officer controlling the facts, and the investigation agency conducted a naval investigation that led to the Defendant’s criminal intent.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, a naval investigation refers to an investigation method whereby an investigative agency arrests a criminal by inducing a person who does not have the original criminal intent to commit an offense by means of deception, attack, etc., and thus, if the investigation agency merely gives the person who has the criminal intent an opportunity to commit a crime or arrests the criminal by means of trick, trick, attack, etc., it cannot be deemed as a naval investigation.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have caused the instant crime by taking advantage of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4532, Jul. 26, 2007). In light of the following, it is difficult for the enforcement officer to control sexual traffic as a crime that is closely committed between sexual purchasers, sexual traffic providers, and sexual traffic women, and it is difficult to deem that the illegal investigation is difficult for the enforcement officer to take place only on the basis of a disguised entry into the customer. The Defendant asked the control police officer about the sexual traffic to ask him about the sexual traffic, and the Defendant’s telephone call was made to the sexual traffic woman at the time of the crackdown, and according to the video taken by the police officer at the time of the crackdown, it cannot be deemed that the investigative officer had caused the Defendant who did not have the original criminal intent to commit the instant

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, and recognize that the defendant was not guilty.

On the other hand, the defendant expressed his strong intention to refuse the demands of customers for arranging sexual traffic, but it is inevitable to continue to do so.