A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

A. misunderstanding of facts: Regarding larceny on August 15, 2013, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that, even in the case of larceny committed on November 24, 2013 in the initial statement of grounds for appeal, “the Defendant infringed upon the Victim F’s house, such as the description in this part of the facts charged, but there is no fact that the Defendant has stolen rosch Rexroth from this point of view,” but the Defendant’s defense counsel submitted a mistake of facts to the effect that “the thief was committed.” However, the Defendant’s defense counsel withdrawn the allegation of facts by means of the Defendant’s defense counsel’s statement on October 13, 2014 and the first trial date ( October 15, 2014). This part of the facts charged is acknowledged

① In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant had a 1D MK4 camera (hereinafter “the instant camera”) and a glarlare (013687) (hereinafter “the instant siren”), which is the damaged part of the facts charged, there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant committed a crime listed in this part of the facts charged; (b) the 40D camera and glare 2 were not discovered in the Defendant’s residence; (c) the Defendant had a hobby in fact, and thereafter purchased another glar, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant purchased the instant camera and siren was not persuasive; and (d) the Defendant’s purchase of the instant glar and glar with another glar without any other evidence to prove that the Defendant had attempted to use the instant glar, including the instant 4 months after the occurrence of the instant case.