The nature of the crime and the investigation of vessel;

Even if an investigation agency conducted so-called naval investigation, it cannot be said that the act by the investigation agency does not constitute a crime as just act, and furthermore, it is reasonable to find the defendant guilty unless the criminal provided an opportunity to commit the crime with the intent to commit the crime, and it does not cause the intent to commit the crime.

Articles 31 and 20 of the Criminal Act

66Do152 delivered on April 12, 1966, 63Do190 delivered on September 12, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 4127 delivered on September 12, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 11Do29 delivered on April 12, 196, Supreme Court Decision 195Do1420 delivered on September 12, 1963

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (72 High Court Decision 610)

All appeals by the defendant, etc. are dismissed.

One hundred and twenty days of confinement before the judgment is rendered shall be included in the principal sentence of the original judgment against the accused, etc.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 is that the first case was caused by naval investigation, and the court below found the defendant guilty despite the fact that the crime of this case was not punishable as a legitimate act, so the court below found the defendant guilty. Second, the sentencing of the court below is too unfair, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 is the second point of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 3's attorney is the same as that of Defendant 1, and the court below found the defendant guilty despite the fact that the defendant did not commit the same crime as the facts charged, so the judgment of the court below is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second case was caused by the act of inducing a crime by the method of naval investigation by the defendant, etc.

Therefore, the court below's decision that found Defendant 1's violation of the law can not be seen as a legitimate act, even though it is acknowledged that Defendant 1's investigation was conducted on a vessel, as pointed out in this paper, and it cannot be seen as a legitimate act, and in this case, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate act in a case where Defendant et al. granted an opportunity to commit the crime, or where it is recognized that Defendant et al. had an intention to commit the crime, it cannot be seen as a legitimate act. Thus, there is no violation of the law in the court below's decision that found Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 guilty. The court below's decision is proper, and the court below's decision is unreasonable even if considering the circumstances as argued by the above Defendant et al., even if considering the circumstances, and the court below's decision cannot be seen as being unreasonable, and since the court below's decision's determination of facts was made on the basis of the evidence duly admitted by the court below's decision that Defendant 3's act of violation of law cannot be found to be legitimate and reasonable.

Therefore, since each appeal by the defendant, etc. is clearly well-grounded, it shall be dismissed in its entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be included 120 days out of the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of the judgment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act in the original sentence of the judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Man-Operation (Presiding Judge)