All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the larceny and intrusion part of the facts charged in this case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A was an apartment in which the victim was living at the time of the crime. However, Defendant A was unable to commit a direct crime of motor vehicles and horses, but was unable to commit the crime, and Defendant A merely carried out clothes, hats, and masts brought by the Defendant to a third party according to the direction of the general responsibility, and carried out the theft in the apartment complex. In fact, Defendant A was not the Defendant but the third party.

Defendant

A was intended to deliver the cash owned by the victim to Defendant C, but there was no fact that Defendant C was involved in the instant crime in collusion with other assistant employees.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B did not participate in the instant crime in collusion with other assistant employees.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) In misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the facts, Defendant C did not have engaged in the instant Bosing crime in collusion with other assistant employees.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

(d)

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, including the CCTV images of the apartment CCTV that judged the misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the circumstances properly explained by the lower court, it can be recognized that Defendant A committed theft by intrusion upon the victim’s residence, as described in the facts charged.

Even if the defendant A and his defense counsel asserted, the person who actually committed the crime of intrusion upon residence and theft is not the defendant but the third party, the apartment complex is located in accordance with the direction of the general policy by providing the third party with the clothes, hats, masckes, etc. brought by the defendant A.