All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent the end of gas pipes, since the Plaintiff had already been in a separate state of gas gas gas gas and gas pipes at the time when the Defendant removed gas gas gas gas gas pipes.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant and the defense counsel identical to the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and on the grounds that “the grounds for conviction” in the judgment,

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's aforementioned judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts. The court below's judgment is just in light of the following facts: the time when the defendant replaced the electric ion water machine with the point of time when J confirmed that the gas was connected with the gas ion gas gas gas gas source; the multi-company operator or worker who did not know about the gas was not able to separate the gas ion and gas pipeline from the day during which J made a statement to the same purport.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We also examine the criminal defendant and prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing.

The gas exhauster is not a defendant who did not take a negative measure against the end of the gas pipeline while removing the gas exhauster.