[1] The validity of an indictment based on an illegal undercover operation (i.e., invalidation)

[2] The case holding that the investigation of the import of philophones is an investigation of a ship so that they can have a criminal intent

[1] Article 13 of the Criminal Code, Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 13 of the Criminal Code, Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1247 decided Oct. 28, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1899)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No415 decided May 17, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

Unlike the fact that the investigative method, which simply provides an opportunity to commit a crime to a person who has the criminal intent or facilitates the commission of a crime, may be allowed depending on the case where the investigative agency, by means of tricks, schemes, etc., induces a person who does not have the original criminal intent, thereby inducing the criminal intent, thereby inducing the arrest of the criminal cannot be exempted from the illegality of a naval investigation, and such prosecution based on a naval investigation shall be deemed null and void in violation of the provisions of Acts.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the investigation of Nonindicted Party 2 was carried out on the importation of Nonindicted Party 4, and thereby, maintained the first instance court that acquitted Nonindicted Party 2 from the charges of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and that Nonindicted Party 2 was arrested in the name of Nonindicted Party 2, and that Nonindicted Party 3 was aware of the fact that Nonindicted Party 2 was arrested in the name of Nonindicted Party 4, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was arrested in the name of Nonindicted Party 2, and that Nonindicted Party 6 was sent to Nonindicted Party 4, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was sent to Nonindicted Party 6’s personal information, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was sent to Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 6’s personal information, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was sent to Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 6’s personal information, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was sent to Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 6’s personal information on Nonindicted Party 2’s personal account at the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office.

In light of the records, the court below's above recognition of naval investigation, dismissal of prosecution, and acquittal are acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or of misunderstanding of legal principles as to naval investigation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and state appointed defense counsel.

Defendant 2 asserted that the fact of the administration of his phiphones was changed, but the court below did not properly examine the fact that the fact was changed, or was caused by an investigation of a criminal intent. However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the court below determined that the investigation agency participated only in the part on the import of the phiphones and did not participate in the administration of Defendant 2, and it is just to accept the result of the examination of the phiphones as evidence and find the defendant guilty of this part by adopting it as evidence, and it cannot be said that there is a mistake of fact due to a violation

3. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 and state appointed defense counsel.

Defendant 1 is clear in the records that only the decision of the court of first instance was insufficient as a ground for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, Defendant 1 cannot be viewed as the ground for appeal on the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of insufficient deliberation, mistake of facts due to violation

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)