All appeals filed by A, B, and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) Although there was no record of suggesting the thief or viewing the network with Defendant B as stated in the judgment of the court below on the facts constituting a special larceny as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, and thereby convicted Defendant B of this point. 2) The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s sentence (the three years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, the three years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B, and the two years and six years and six years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C) that was sentenced to the Defendants of the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the results of further examination of the witness conducted in the court of trial by taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as well as the results of the witness examination conducted in the court of trial, B stated that the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below offered that Defendant A had reported the victim Q Q’s cash first, and that Defendant A had stolen his cash, etc., and there is no reason to suspect the credibility in the statement. In addition, the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court of the court below, there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the statement. In addition, the defendant A also has been a confession of all suspicions about this point at the time of the crime, and the circumstances leading to the subsequent crime while using the stolen credit card together, it is sufficiently found guilty of this part of the charges of special larceny by the above evidence.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, and the prosecutor, the above Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing should be seen together.

1...