The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not engage in any speech or behavior related to a breadth, such as locking the office door, taking action to put a fire into the LPG gas tank, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, until the court below found the victim's employees to be in the on-site office, and close the door with the LPG gas source brought by the defendant to the investigation agency, and the last part of the statement consistently stated to the purport that the defendant's act was repeated while opening the above gas valve and doing so, but did not turn off in it actually, it seems that the contents of the statement are reliable. The defendant himself stated that the defendant himself had a LPG gas source in the on-site office and made a conversation with the victim while driving the cigarette with the victim. In light of the fact that the defendant who was faced with the problem of payment settlement can only be recognized as the victim's notification of harm and injury, the defendant's act of repeatedly attaching LPG gas, which is dangerous goods, and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts as alleged in the facts charged by the defendant.

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

B. Although there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant had no record of punishment as a like crime and agreed with the victim, the crime of this case is a space sealed by LPG gas through which the risk of explosion exists.