2. The instant crime is deemed to have been committed on the grounds that: (a) the background and method of the crime; (b) the assessment of the victim at the time of the crime; and (c) the assessment of the damage that the victim was at the time of the crime; and (d) in particular, in the case of the crime in preparation for fire-prevention in the department store, it may lead to a serious infringement of legal interests; (b) the prosecutor pointed out in the grounds of appeal; and (c) the Defendant repeated the same mistake despite the fact that

However, on the other hand, the victims do not want to be punished against the defendant because of the absence of the substantial damage suffered by the victims of the crime of this case, and the crime of this case is found to have arisen from the state of mental disorder resulting from the Defendant's qualitative mental disorder, etc., and in order to fundamentally prevent the risk of recidivism, appropriate treatment is necessary for the defendant. In addition, in full view of all other circumstances, including the fact that the defendant orders medical treatment and custody along with the sentence of imprisonment, and that the defendant also expresses the intention of active treatment along with deep reflectness and reflectness, it cannot be deemed that the punishment imposed by the court below is unfair because the punishment imposed by the defendant is too uneasible.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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