The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, did not intend to provide alcohol and helper, had been forced by F to have the intent to destroy the instant crime for the purpose of reporting.

The act of the defendant shall not be punished because it is caused by illegal patrol or investigation of F.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to an investigation method whereby an investigation agency, by means of deception or attack, causes a person who does not have the original criminal intent to commit a crime, thereby inducing the arrest of the criminal. Thus, if the person who has the criminal intent is provided with an opportunity to commit a crime or facilitate a crime, it cannot be deemed a naval investigation if the inducer merely requested the person to commit a crime more than several times without direct connection with the investigation agency, and the investigation agency cannot be deemed to have used a deceitful act or attack, etc., even if the inducer caused the criminal intent, it does not constitute an illegal naval investigation (see, e.g., Daegu District Court Decisions 201No4184, Jul. 26, 2012; 2012Do10175, Nov. 5, 2012).

Since the crime of this case cannot be deemed to have been committed through an illegal naval investigation or any other similar act, the crime of this case shall not be deemed to have been committed.