The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) at the time of reporting 119, the police officers, etc. dispatched to the site clearly expressed their intent or purpose to definate carbon gas, such as the Defendant’s expression “profining finite carbon gas” and “profining finite gas”; (c) however, the lower court accepted the Defendant’s change suit as it was and did not have any intention or purpose to defin

In addition, as long as the Defendant actually prepared but prepared but prepared but did not constitute an objective preliminary act in the preliminary crime, the lower court did not recognize it as an objective preliminary act for the preliminary crime (misunderstanding the legal doctrine). On June 3, 2015, the summary of the facts charged: (a) around 00:50, the Defendant reported the Defendant’s home of the Defendant, 106 Dong 501, Nam-gu, Gwangju, Nam-gu, Seoul, about 119 to “explosible gas” using a cellular phone; (b) around that time, he combines three copies of the but as well as a portable but as a tape, he prepared one of them to be removed from one of them; and (c) the Defendant and the police officers and the pipes who continued to receive a report on 1199 to “hum for explosion.”

As a result, the defendant tried to commit the crime in order to cause danger to human life, body and property by burning explosive objects.

3. The lower court’s judgment, comprehensively taking account of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the prosecutor, that “The evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant had an intent and purpose to de facto explosiond carbon gas at the time of the act as stated in the facts charged, was sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lower court determined that it is difficult to see it, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty.

4. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. Articles 175 and 172(1) of the Criminal Act