2. On the ground that the victim’s father and wife did not pay the construction cost, the Defendant committed an offense, such as harming the victim’s residence, avoiding disturbance by intrusioning the victim’s residence, destroying the victim’s property, extinguishing the fire, and taking the victim’s property into account his/her attempted attempt.

The defendant's fire-prevention crime could lead to a big loss of human life or serious property damage if the victim did not extinguish the fire.

The victim seems to have suffered considerable mental damage due to each of the crimes in this case.

In light of these circumstances, the defendant's liability for the crime is not against the law.

However, the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and divided his mistake, and agreed with the victim.

The defendant's fire-prevention crime was committed by the defendant, which was put to a fluor for women, was committed by the victim's attempted fluor, and there was no fluoral part and no fluoral damage, and property damage seems to be insignificant.

In addition, considering the fact that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and that it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in the event that the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing are not changed, compared to the circumstances after the crime, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the sentence imposed on the Defendant appears to fall within the appropriate range of sentence corresponding to its responsibility, and it is not determined

Therefore, prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.