The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while misunderstanding the legal principles, recommended a police officer, who was the most likely to administer narcotics, to administer phiphones with the Defendant on condition that the police officer can only do so, and the Defendant purchased and possessed phiphones.

This falls under the so-called “clateral investigation causing criminal intent,” and thus, the indictment of this case should be dismissed as unlawful.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. A. A naval investigation that induces a person who does not have original intent to commit a crime by using a deceptive act or attack, etc. and arrests the criminal is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1247, Oct. 28, 2005, etc.). In a specific case, whether a person constitutes an illegal naval 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 the inducement, the response of the induced person by inducement, the history of the punishment of the inducer, and the illegality of the inducing act itself.

Therefore, it is not illegal undercover investigation that a person who has direct relations with an investigative agency appeals to the ruling or appraisal of the induced person by taking advantage of personal-friendly relationship with the induced person, or by applying gold psychological pressure or threats to the induced person, or by excessively interfering with the crime by providing money to be used for the crime, etc., which is difficult to refuse or refuse, or by presenting the method of the crime, it is not allowed to cause the induced person to commit a crime. However, it is not allowed for the induce person to have requested the induced person to commit a crime more repeatedly and repeatedly without having direct relation with the investigative agency, but the investigative agency only requested the induced person to commit the crime more repeatedly and repeatedly without having direct relation with the investigative agency, and used the

in this case, even if any.