A. As to the facts constituting the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant did not deliver philophones and marijuana.

B. As to the facts constituting the crime No. 3 in the judgment of the court below which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, E demanded the defendant to contact with him at the request of an investigative agency, and the defendant purchased a philopon to E, and the defendant committed the above crime.

Therefore, this constitutes an illegal undercover investigation.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence such as the statement of E on the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the defendant delivered a penphone and marijuana to E as criminal facts.

Therefore, since the court below did not err by mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, it is unlawful for an investigative agency to arrest a criminal by inducing a person who does not have the original intent to commit a crime by using a deceptive act or attack, etc., and in a specific case, whether it constitutes an illegal undercover investigation should be determined by taking into account the type and nature of the crime in question, the status and role of the inducer, the details and method of inducing the inducer, the response of the inducer by the inducer, the history of the punishment of the inducer, and the illegality of the inducing act itself.

Therefore, it is not allowed that the inducer, who is directly related to the investigation agency, appeals to the ruling or appraisal of the inducer by taking advantage of personal and friendly relationship with the inducer, or excessively intervenes in the manner that it is difficult for the inducer to refuse, or that it provides funds to be used for the crime, etc., or that it is difficult for the inducer to do so. However, it is not illegal under the condition that the inducer does not have a direct relation with the investigation agency.