The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (15 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant, while cooking food, is that the Defendant: (a) committed the crime of this case, while carrying a part of the building that D used as a residence, destroyed and damaged the part of the building that D used as a residence; and (b) leaked the butane gas in his vehicle; and (c) destroyed the said vehicle by fire within the Rater.

The Defendant’s shot gas inhales in a car and repeats the crime of explosioning the butane gas by shot. The Defendant committed such crime on August 9, 2017 without being aware of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and the protection and observation period despite having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and the observation of protection. The Defendant committed the instant crime of the same kind again without being aware of the suspension of execution and protection observation period. If the Defendant’s negligence failed to timely extinguish the fire on a building, there was a risk of serious consequences, such as the spread of the fire in an adjacent building and the occurrence of human injury or property damage in a considerable amount, etc., that would be disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, all of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant against his mistake, the defendant was detained for about four months due to the crime of this case and has an opportunity to reflect his mistake, the defendant made efforts to recover damage by giving up the right to claim the return of the deposit for lease deposit to D and transferring the goods to D, and the victim did not want to punish the defendant. The fire caused by the crime of this case was spread in a timely manner, and the degree of damage caused by the crime of this case was not very serious weight. The defendant also suffered considerable video damage due to the crime of fire prevention of the motor vehicle owned by the defendant, and the defendant was the crime of fire prevention of the motor vehicle owned by the defendant of this case.