The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The indictment of this case by misapprehending the legal principles is unlawful as a result of the naval investigation.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, an investigation agency’s arrest of a criminal by inducing a criminal intent by using a deceptive act or attack, etc. against a person who does not have the original intent to commit a crime is illegal. In a specific case, whether it constitutes an illegal undercover operation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the type and nature of the crime in question, the status and role of the inducer, the background and method of inducing the inducer, the response of the inducedr by inducement, the history of punishing the inducedr, and the illegality of the inducing act itself

It is not allowed that the inducer, who is directly related to the investigation agency, appeals to the ruling or appraisal of the inducedr by taking advantage of personal friendly relationship with the inducedr, or is unable to refuse or make monetary or psychological pressure or threats, or excessively intervenes in the crime by providing the money to be used for the crime by presenting the method of the crime and providing the method of the crime. However, it is not allowed for the inducer to cause criminal intent. However, even if the inducer merely requested the inducer to commit the crime more repeatedly and repeatedly without having direct relation with the investigation agency, and the investigation agency cannot be deemed to have used the means or schemes, etc., even if it caused the cause of criminal intent of the inducer.

Even if it does not constitute an illegal naval investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10427, Nov. 14, 2013). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, G is a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the time of the end of August 2013 and at the time of the investigation.