2. The Defendant did not make any effort to recover from damage even though he/she acquired money or goods by abusing the victim’s trust lacking intellectual ability, and the crime of fire prevention, in itself, may harm public safety and peace and inflict serious harm on another’s life and property. Furthermore, the Defendant’s strict punishment may be imposed in light of the fact that the place where the Defendant was in fire is a subway station in which public traffic is frequent.

However, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant himself/herself seems to have committed the said crime while living in a old age with disabilities of Grade III, which are merely 55, with the mental retardation disorder; (c) the primary offender and currently living together with his/her family members after liquidation and employment; and (d) he/she is detained for at least five months in the lower court, and thus he/she again lives together with his/her family members; and (c) he/she is going to not make the same mistake again in the future, taking into account the favorable circumstances favorable to the Defendant; and (d) other circumstances indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, circumstances after the commission of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the recommendation type (at least 10 months of imprisonment) as determined by the Sentencing Committee.

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.