The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The arguments contained in the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal of the grounds for appeal expires shall be examined to the extent that it supplements the above grounds for appeal.

A. The Defendant stated this part of the assertion as a mistake of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, but it is judged that there is an assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles in light of the purport of the assertion.

1) Since police officers in uniform induced to commit the instant crime in disguised manner with customers, the instant indictment was unlawful based on a vessel investigation. (2) The Defendant did not arrange sexual traffic, and was unaware of the fact that the said police officers responded to sexual traffic at the time, and was unaware of the fact that the said police officers provided sexual traffic. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the instant crime.

3) In light of the above circumstances, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (B) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two years of probation) is too unreasonable

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, a person who does not have the original criminal intent per se of relevant legal principles cannot be exempt from the illegality of a naval investigation that arouses the criminal intent by means of an investigative agency’s deception or attack, etc., and thereby arrests the criminal. The prosecution based on such a naval investigation constitutes a case where the procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of the law.

However, if a person who has an intention to commit a crime is simply provided with an opportunity to commit a crime, it cannot be concluded that it is an illegal naval investigation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do1247, Oct. 28, 2005; 2007Do1903, May 31, 2007). Meanwhile, whether a case constitutes an illegal undercover operation in a specific case is the type and nature of the relevant crime, the status and role of the inducer, and the details and method of inducing.