Banks often remind customers: "No responsibility for money after it leaves the counter". In this case, the ATM should actually be regarded as a representative of the bank. Xu Ting neither smashed the ATM nor deceived it; he simply followed the bank's announced withdrawal procedure to get money from the ATM. After leaving the machine, the transaction had ended normally. According to the bank's so-called logic of "no responsibility after money leaves the counter", why should Xu Ting bear the charge of "theft"? If the court can rule that Xu Ting committed a crime, then when similar reverse errors occur at the bank, should we ordinary depositors sue the bank with the charge of "theft"? Which person from the bank should be sent to prison? I personally express extreme indignation and inability to accept such a verdict. Personally, I think a one-year imprisonment sentence is reasonable.