Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State, represented by prosecutor Ewa Lisiecka, accused Paweł Wrona of theft of Roman’s cordless drill and asked for a conviction and an appropriate penalty. The record identifies the drill’s value as PLN 1,200. Paweł denies stealing it and relies on an agreed loan and its return on Sunday. 2. The court decides this case only on the supplied hearing record and rules. The State must support every required element of the criminal accusation with reliable evidence. An accusation or argument is not itself proof, and unresolved doubt on a required element cannot be treated as proof against the defendant. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Roman withdrew permission before Paweł collected the drill on Friday. The State bears the burden of proving that point. The related issue is whether Paweł collected and returned the drill; the record supports both events, but those facts alone do not establish theft. Submissions of the parties 4. The State submits that Roman orally cancelled the loan before Paweł collected the drill. It argues that the written messages establish only the original permission and do not rule out a later oral cancellation. The State asks for conviction only if the court is satisfied that cancellation preceded collection and that Paweł had the required intent. In its final submission, the State expressly acknowledges that it has no independent proof of the alleged conversation and that the case depends on Roman’s account (statement-15). 5. Paweł submits that he collected the drill under the earlier agreement, which allowed him to borrow it until Sunday, and returned it on time. He points to the Friday messages and the absence of any written cancellation. His submissions also question whether Roman can support the alleged cancellation with messages or other evidence (statement-10, statement-12, statement-14). Evidence and findings 6. The complete Friday message exchange is presented as an exhibit by both sides. It shows Paweł asking to borrow the cordless drill for shelving until Sunday and Roman replying, “Yes. Take it after six.” The exhibit description says the original thread is available for inspection on Paweł’s phone, identifies the tool and proposed return day, and contains no written cancellation (exhibit-3-e3; also exhibit-11-e3, exhibit-13-e3, and exhibit-15-e3). The repeated entries describe the same exchange; they are not separate corroborating conversations. The record gives no specific basis to doubt the thread’s authenticity, though the court considers it for what it shows and no more: written permission and no written cancellation in that thread. 7. The record includes admitted testimony from Witness 1 on cross-examination. It reports that Roman saw Paweł take the PLN 1,200 drill on Friday, alleges an afternoon oral cancellation, and acknowledges that the drill was returned on Sunday (statement-9). This is an attributed account, not a produced document or a separate statement from Roman in the record. It supports collection and reports an alleged cancellation, but it does not establish when or how clearly that cancellation was communicated. No independent evidence of the conversation is supplied. 8. The parties’ submissions are arguments, not additional proof of the disputed conversation. The State’s final submission candidly recognizes the absence of independent proof (statement-15). Paweł’s submissions assert that the loan was followed and the drill returned as promised (statement-10, statement-12, statement-14). The record supports the agreed return through the reported acknowledgment, but does not provide separate documentation of the drill’s condition or any other matter; none is necessary to decide the central issue. Reasons 9. On the issue of permission withdrawal, the State has not met its burden. The written exchange is direct evidence that Roman authorized Paweł to take this drill after six and borrow it until Sunday. It contains no written cancellation. The absence of a written cancellation does not prove that no oral cancellation occurred, and the court has considered the reported account that Roman said he cancelled the loan. But the account, as presented, does not establish the timing or clarity of the alleged communication with sufficient reliability to overcome the written permission and the agreed Sunday return. 10. The court does not reject the reported account merely because it is oral. Rather, the difficulty is that the record supplies no independent support and leaves the decisive timing uncertain. The State itself identifies that uncertainty and asks for conviction only if the court is satisfied that cancellation came before collection (statement-13, statement-15). Under the supplied rules that suspicion is not proof, and each criminal element must be proven. The court therefore finds that withdrawal of permission before collection is not proven. 11. Collection and return are established on this record. The reported observation supports that Paweł collected the drill on Friday, and the reported acknowledgment supports its return on Sunday (statement-9). Those facts are consistent with the written loan arrangement. They do not establish that the collection was unauthorized, nor do they independently establish criminal intent. The State’s argument that an earlier permission could cease to authorize later collection is sound in principle, but it does not resolve the factual gap: the State must prove that a cancellation actually occurred before collection. 12. The court does not decide that an oral cancellation was impossible or that the defendant has proved every detail of his account. The burden is on the State, not Paweł. Because the decisive withdrawal-before-collection issue is not proven, the accusation cannot result in a conviction. No further evidence is identified as obtainable in this closing record, and the matter is ready for decision without adjournment. Final order 13. The court finds that collection and return of the drill are established, but that withdrawal of permission before collection is not proven. The State has therefore failed to prove the theft accusation on the supplied record. 14. Paweł Wrona is acquitted of the accusation of theft. The State’s request for conviction and a penalty is denied. No monetary award is made to either party; the record supplies no claim for compensation or basis for a payment order.