All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even though it is reasonable to view that the Defendant stolen all the two types of larcenys owned by the Defendant in light of the fact that: (a) if the two air conditioners out of the victim F owned by the Defendant do not exist on the same day, it is highly likely for the same person to be active in accordance with the empirical rule; and (b) the Defendant’s disposal of one air conditioner out of the air conditioner out of the air conditioner out of the victim; (c) the Defendant left the air conditioner out of the air conditioner out of the victim and one air conditioner out of the victim F; and (d) the Defendant acquitted the remainder of the victim F, it is erroneous in the judgment of the lower court that acquitted the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant committed the larceny of all the larcenys in the air conditioner out of the victim F.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (five months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below, which found the defendant guilty, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 25, 2013, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of only one theft of the victim’s actual equipment and one of the two external equipment owned by the victim F, on the charge that: (a) the Defendant stolen the air conditioners owned by the victim D on March 25, 2013, and (b) loaded the air conditioners owned by the victim F on March 28, 2013, and loaded the two external equipment owned by the victim F, on the part of the Defendant, around March 28, 2013, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the above charges; (b) with respect to the remainder of the one external equipment owned by the victim F, the statement of F, the statement of F, which corresponds thereto, was insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged; (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise; (d) the F’s statement was confirmed at the time of attendance, but both the Defendant acquired the external equipment from the Defendant 2 and the Defendant 2, who was not the victim’s actual equipment.