형사법상 함정수사의 허용한계와 합리적 통제

Even if the need for entrapment investigations is acknowledged, as long as the seriousness of the investigation can not be neglected, it is time to examine future legislative research to see to what extent a trap should be tolerated as a legitimate investigation. First of all, the scope of entrapment investigation includes all Opportunity- based and Crime-inducing investigations, and through the judgment of illegality, it is reasonable to open all possibilities of control and divide it into illegal and legitimate entrapment investigation. Therefore, it is systematic and logical to define ‘entrapment investigation’ as being conducted by an investigation agency or anyone commissioned by the investigation agency to induce a 3rd person (instigate) or give the 3rd person an opportunity to commit the crime (abet). So a criterion for illegality judgment must first see if the technique of the entrapment investigation goes against the proper procedure and causes the actor to commit a crime then it is obviously illegal, and even if the technique of the investigating agency is not against the proper procedure, but if the actor is caused to commit a crime, it should be acknowledged as illegal. In the case of an illegal entrapment investigation, majority of current opinions regarding responsibility of the investigating agency agree that if the instigating act was done without predicting the results, then the instigator is not considered intentional. However, in the case of the instigator, he can be relieved by arrest, restraint, or restraint cancellation during the investigation stage, but if a complaint is filed, it must be sentenced. However, if the facts of the case are completed and the intentions were not found guilty, this cannot be considered illegal even if the court declares the defendant not guilty. Surely there is no doubt that evidence collected through illegal entrapment investigations must be excluded when presenting evidence.