All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the facts that the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant’s signature and seal on the investigation process by the police investigation, Defendant’s police statement does not have any room for false entry, and there is a circumstance to ensure the credibility or arbitability of the contents of the statement, and thus, it can be seen that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances, but the statement was made under a particularly reliable circumstances, the court below accepted the Defendant’s defense suit, which is hard to accept as to the process of acquiring the number plates, and acquitted Defendant of larceny among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted Defendant of the larceny.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is deemed unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On August 2013, 2013, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges that the Defendant: (a) committed a theft of the Defendant, leading one of the victim’s name and omitted; (b) on October 4, 2013, the Defendant removed and stolen the number plate owned by the victim F on or around 22:30 on October 4, 2013; and (c) there is little room for false entry into the Defendant’s statement made by the police officer D with the Defendant’s statement; and (d) there is no sufficient proof by the prosecutor on objective circumstances that ensure the credibility or voluntariness of the statement made by the Defendant; and (b) there is no possibility that the Defendant purchased the off-to-to-face or number plate from another person or obtained the off-to-face or number plate from another person as the Defendant’s change. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged without reasonable doubt.