2. The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, which could harm public safety and peace and cause serious harm to the life and property of others, and the probation of the Defendant was commenced during juvenile trials due to the crime of special larceny, etc., and the probation of the Defendant was first set forth in the judgment of the court below.

(b)Article 2-c. 2-c., although the offence was arrested by the crime of paragraphs 2 and 2;

Since the crime is re-offendered, the nature of the crime is not easy, but there is a lot of possibility of criticism.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not make any effort to recover from damage to the trial.

In this regard, it can be said that the defendant should be punished strictly.

However, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of each of the instant crimes; (b) each of the instant current structures and fire-prevention crimes was committed in the attempted crimes; (c) the damage therefrom was not significant; and (d) the Defendant did not have any history of having been punished for the same kind of crime; and (c) the Defendant was committed with high school students under the age of 17 and with stress based on group bullying, etc.; and (d) some of the circumstances that may be considered as favorable to the Defendant; and (e) other circumstances shown in the argument in the instant case, including character, conduct, family relationship, environment, background and degree of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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