A. Defendants (1) misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles (based on the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Acts, Including the Mediation, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts (hereinafter referred to as the “instant establishment”)] did not arrange commercial sex acts in E amusement stores located in D at the time of breathing (hereinafter referred to as the “instant establishment”), and the Defendants arranged commercial sex acts by the Defendants.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the detection of the crime, etc., this part of the indictment procedure is illegal as it was instituted through illegal undercover operation (hereinafter “misunderstanding of legal principles”). Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants ( ① Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment; 2 million won of a fine; 2 years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment; 1 year of a suspended sentence of imprisonment; 80 hours of a community service order; 2 years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment; 2 years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment: Defendant B; 2 years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months;

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles is unlawful as it causes the criminal intent by inducing a person who does not have the original criminal intent by using deceptive means or schemes, etc., and thus, whether it constitutes an illegal naval investigation in a specific case ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the type and nature of the relevant crime, the status and role of the inducer, the process and method of inducing the inducer, the response of the inducer due to the inducer, the history and method of inducing the inducer’s punishment, the illegality of the inducing person’s punishment, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7680, Nov. 29, 2007). (2) In light of the above legal principles, it is recognized by the health stand and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.