Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if no facts in the summary reflect the negation of a fact in the document.

Document: NAME_1 was sentenced to three years and three months in a labour camp for embezzlement. He stole nearly 104.5m roubles (APS1.1m; $1.6m), the court in Russia's far east concluded. Several companies are being investigated. President NAME_2 had warned that some managers might face jail. "If their guilt is proven, they will have to change their warm beds at home for plank-beds in prison," Mr NAME_3 said, commenting on the arrest of four people involved in the project. He watched the rocket launch on Thursday in the Amur region, near the Russian-Chinese border, 5,500km (3,500 miles) east of Moscow. A last-minute technical hitch had delayed the Soyuz 2.1a, carrying three satellites into orbit. It was Mr NAME_3's idea to build a new space port in Russia to avoid any potential political risks of using the old Soviet launch centre at Baikonur in Kazakhstan. Deputy Prime Minister NAME_4 said

Summary: 1. It was not Mr NAME_3's idea to build a new space port in Russia to avoid any potential political risks of using the old Soviet launch centre at Baikonur in Kazakhstan.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to facts?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Your response should contain less than 300 words.
user