2. The crime of this case requires strict punishment against the Defendant, in consideration of the fact that the Defendant destroyed the studio hand of the victim E, and that the victim D and his children, who are the front wife of the Defendant, intruded into the above studio used as a residence and destroyed the fire, and the nature of the crime is not good.

However, considering the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigative agency; (c) the Defendant’s fire was accepted; (d) the victim D wanted to take the Defendant’s front address; (c) the Defendant was also sentenced to the suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex and environment; (d) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too uneasy and unreasonable; and (e) the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.