A south China court on Monday rescinded the life sentence given to a migrant worker who took 175,000 yuan (24,400 U.S. dollars) from a faulty ATM, instead jailing him for five years.

The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou in the southern Guangdong Province convicted Xu Ting of theft and fined him 20,000 yuan, in addition to his jail term. It also demanded that Xu return his windfall to the bank.

"The judges reached their verdict taking into account the fact that Xu's theft took place when there was something wrong with the ATM, so, compared with a premeditated crime, he didn't have so much a malicious intention," said Gan Zhengpei, a judge with the court, explaining why Xu's sentence was reduced.

"Rather, Xu took advantage of the faulty ATM and stole the money using his bank card. Compared with monetary theft by violent means, his case is not so grave," he judge said.

Xu said that he would not appeal further, but his father said that he would appeal as he was "unsatisfied" with the verdict.

Xu, a native of Linfen City in northern Shanxi Province, was working as a security guard in April 2006. When drawing cash from an ATM, he realized it only deducted 1 yuan from his account for each 1,000 yuan that he had withdrawn. He mentioned this to a friend surnamed Guo.

Xu subsequently withdrew 175,000 yuan over 171 transactions while Guo took 18,000 yuan.

Guo was jailed for a year after turning himself in. Xu eluded capture for a year before being apprehended and sentenced last year.

The verdict in the 24-year-old Xu's first trial sparked an outcry among the media and legal experts alike, with many saying that he didn't deserve such severe punishment.

State prosecutors insisted on charging Xu with theft from a banking institution, while his lawyers protested that their client was not guilty or at least, hadn't violated the criminal law.

One of Xu's lawyers, Yang Zhenping, argued that Xu did not actually go into the bank, so he did not steal from a banking institution; he used his real identity to get the money at a public venue, which was not "theft"; and his actions constituted improper gains under the civil law and should not be judged according to the criminal law.

"ATMs are common in Guangzhou and other big cities. Xu didn't break into a well-guarded banking institution to commit theft," He Fujie, who works for the Guangzhou-based HJM International Law Office, said in December.

"I don't think that Xu's deliberate withdrawal of money from a malfunctioning ATM is the same as robbing a bank," He said in a letter to the National People's Congress (NPC), the country's top legislature.

The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou was told by the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court last month to rehear the case. It said the November ruling lacked evidence and some facts needed clarification.

A retrial was conducted on Feb. 22 at the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou when prosecutors insisted on charging Xu with stealing from a bank. His lawyers, however, protested that their client was not guilty.

The court deferred its decision.

In order to be present at Monday's rehearing, Xu Cailiang, Xu's father, flew into Guangzhou late on Sunday.

"What concerns me most is the term of the imprisonment, but I am confident they won't sentence my son to life this time," said the senior Xu before Monday's trial. "The retrial itself suggested the previous ruling was not fair."

(Xinhua News Agency, April 1, 2008)