2. The judgment of the court below was based on the following facts: the crime of this case was committed on the ground that the defendant does not have the meaning of the use of a marina convenience facility, and the fire extinguisher 2, which is a dangerous object on the second floor of the building, was removed from the system of checking the situation of the kitchen staff, and thus, the crime of this case was very poor in the nature of the crime was committed; since the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is not fully repaid; since the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is not fully repaid, it is not agreed with the victim; even if the prosecutor asserts that there was no record of the defendant's unfavorable sentencing against the defendant at the court of the first instance, even if the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case without any history of criminal punishment for the same kind; the defendant was found to be in contravention of the defendant's depth as being disabled with the disability of Grade 4, as well as the economic conditions of basic supply and demand as well as is not adequate, the defendant's age, motive, motive, and scope of punishment after the crime of this case.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.