Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The prosecution asks the court to find that Taras Melnyk knowingly took a workshop tool kit for a private repair without permission and to impose a lawful penalty. Taras asks that the prosecution’s conviction request be dismissed; alternatively, he seeks a more lenient lawful sentence. 2. The record contains Olena Marchuk’s signed statement, presented as exhibits 3-e1, 5-e1, and 7-e1. Those exhibits repeat the same account and are not three independent witnesses. Olena says she saw Taras carry the kit away at closing, believed he was attending a workshop customer’s repair, demanded its return after learning otherwise, and received it the next morning without apparent damage. She estimates the kit’s value at UAH 18,000. 3. The record also contains the parties’ submissions about a Telegram exchange. The exact messages and their context are not reproduced. The exhibit description notes that Olena’s claimed restriction to customer work does not appear in the visible messages. No separate testimony from Taras or Olena is included. The submissions are arguments about the evidence, not themselves proof of every asserted fact. Issues for determination 4. The central issue is whether the prosecution proved that Taras lacked permission for the private repair and thereby proved the required criminal elements. The prosecution bears that burden under Rule 41, which requires reliable support for each required element, and Rule 8, which makes clear that suspicion or accusation alone is not proof. 5. The court must also determine what the record establishes about the kit’s taking and return, and whether any proven loss supports a penalty or other remedy. The prosecution bears the burden on those matters insofar as it seeks relief based on them. Submissions of the parties 6. The prosecution argues that permission to take the kit overnight did not necessarily include permission to use it for a private job. It relies on Olena’s statement that she believed the kit was for a workshop customer, that Taras’s request did not identify the private purpose, and that she demanded the kit back after learning otherwise. The prosecution acknowledges that the messages do not state the claimed customer-work restriction. It says the workshop seeks no replacement payment but asks for an appropriate lawful penalty. 7. The defendant relies on the Telegram exchange as supporting his understanding that Olena permitted an overnight loan. He argues that the prosecution must prove each element and asks for dismissal, alternatively a more lenient sentence. His submissions do not set out the messages’ exact wording or context. The court therefore considers the asserted exchange, but cannot treat either party’s interpretation of it as conclusively established. Evidence and findings 8. On the taking and return, Olena’s signed statement is a direct account that she saw Taras carry the kit away and received it back the next morning without apparent damage. The account is specific on those points and is not contradicted by another produced account. The court finds the taking and return established. That finding does not itself show that the taking was unauthorized or criminal. 9. On permission, Olena’s account supports her own belief that the kit was for customer work and her statement that she demanded its return after learning otherwise. The account is relevant, but it does not establish what Taras understood or what Olena communicated to him. The exhibit’s stated contradiction—that the customer-work restriction does not appear in the visible messages—limits the weight of the claimed restriction. The messages themselves are not set out in the record, so the court cannot verify their wording, context, or whether they conveyed permission for the private repair. 10. The prosecution’s point that Taras did not clearly identify the private job may support suspicion that Olena did not know the purpose. But the record presents that point through submissions, not a separate produced statement or testimony. The defendant’s assertion that the exchange supported an overnight loan is likewise not enough, by itself, to prove that Olena approved the private use. The court does not find either interpretation established merely because a party advances it. 11. On loss, the estimate of UAH 18,000 is Olena’s estimate of the kit’s value, not proof that the kit was lost or damaged. Her account says it was returned without apparent damage, and the prosecution says the workshop seeks no replacement payment. No separate financial loss is established. Reasons 12. Rule 41 requires reliable evidence for every required criminal element. Rule 8 requires more than suspicion. The prosecution has shown that Taras took the kit and returned it, but the decisive question is whether that use was without permission. The evidence leaves uncertainty on that point: Olena’s belief and later demand support the prosecution’s interpretation, while the stated absence of a customer-work restriction from the visible messages and the lack of the messages’ wording and context prevent the court from reliably determining what permission was given or what Taras understood. 13. The defendant is not required to prove permission or disprove the prosecution’s case. The prosecution bears the burden. Because the record does not reliably establish lack of permission for the private repair, the permission issue is not proven, and the prosecution has not established the required criminal elements. The court therefore denies the conviction request. The alternative request for a more lenient sentence does not arise because no conviction is entered. 14. The prosecution also has not established a separate loss or a basis for a particular penalty. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match proven harm. The kit’s estimated value does not establish a loss where the same account says it was returned without apparent damage. This finding is separate from, and does not replace, the prosecution’s failure to prove the criminal elements. Final order 15. The prosecution’s request for a conviction and penalty against Taras Melnyk is denied. The prosecution is dismissed on the record presented. No payment is ordered by either party, and no monetary award is made. The court finds the taking and return established, but finds lack of permission for the private repair and a separate compensable loss not proven. This order rests on the limits of the available record and does not treat the defendant’s account of the messages as independently proven.