The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years, probation, an order to attend a lecture for violent treatment of not more than 80 hours, confiscation) imposed by the court below is too unafford and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below takes into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s act of causing injury to the Defendant by getting the victim’s head by making a non-discriminatory and satisfying the victim’s head by making a satisfying the victim’s glass and water purifiers; (b) the Defendant’s act of destroying the entrance door and water purifiers of the hotel operated by the victim by setting fire to the rain of the hotel; (c) the Defendant’s act of destroying the victim’s 44 persons is not good; and (d) the Defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times including being sentenced to suspended sentence due to violent crimes; (b) the Defendant led the Defendant to the confession and mistake of each of the crimes of this case; and (c) the victim expressed his intention not to have the victim punished against the Defendant; (d) the Defendant attempted to commit the crime by having cooperation with his own fire extinguishers by using it; and (e) the Defendant’s act of taking into account all circumstances such as imprisonment with prison labor for life and behavior; and (d) the motive and (e) the Defendant’s motive and motive for confiscation.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, the grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in this court have already been considered by the court below while determining the defendant's punishment.