A. The fact that the Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, intended to sell Mescopics to F (hereinafter “philopics”), was attempted to attract and purchase the Defendant by inducing the Defendant by requiring a public document submitted to an investigation agency. As such, this constitutes an illegal undercopic investigation induced by an investigation agency, and the Defendant is merely a trade to a person who has no intention to purchase, and thus constitutes an attempted crime.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the part 1) The term "ship investigation" refers to an investigation method by which an investigative agency induces a person who does not have the original criminal intent to commit a crime by using deceptive means, schemes, etc. As such, if the investigation agency simply arrests the criminal by simply providing the person who has the criminal intent with an opportunity to commit a crime or by using deceptive means or schemes, it shall not be deemed a naval investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4532, Jul. 26, 2007). Furthermore, if an investigative agency merely requested the induced person to commit a crime more repeatedly and repeatedly without direct relation with an investigative agency, and it cannot be deemed that the investigative agency used a deceptive act or schemes, etc., even if the induced person's criminal intent was caused thereby, it does not constitute an illegal naval investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2084, Jul. 24, 2008).