Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The Public Prosecutor asks the court to convict Aino Lehtinen of theft and impose an approximately €200 fine. The allegation concerns a €24 thermos that was not included on Aino's €17.80 checkout receipt. Aino asks the court to deny the conviction and fine. 2. This is a criminal matter. Under the supplied rules, the prosecutor must support the requested result with reliable evidence, suspicion is not proof, and each required element must be proven. The defendant does not have to prove that Aino made an innocent mistake. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the prosecutor proved that Aino intended to take the thermos without paying. The burden is on the prosecutor. The second issue is whether the evidence reliably establishes that Aino was the person who carried the thermos out and what the staff member observed. That burden also rests on the prosecutor. Submissions of the parties 4. The prosecutor argues that Aino put the thermos in her personal tote before checkout, paid for other groceries but not the thermos, and left the shop with it. The prosecutor says the choice to put it in a tote rather than with the other groceries, and the fact that Aino could pay for other items, show deliberate conduct. The prosecutor also argues that Aino did not prove she paid or intended to pay after being stopped. The requested outcome is a conviction and an approximately €200 fine. 5. The defendant accepts that the thermos was not on the receipt and that Aino left with it. The defendant argues that those facts do not establish what Aino intended. Aino's reported account is that she forgot the thermos and offered to pay when stopped. The defendant acknowledges that this reported offer is consistent with a mistake but does not by itself prove Aino's earlier intent. The defendant says there is no further account or separate evidence and asks that the conviction and fine be denied. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt is presented as a clear record of the items paid for. It lists groceries but not the thermos. Both parties accept that the thermos was unpaid. The receipt establishes nonpayment; it does not show why the thermos was omitted or what Aino intended. 7. The staff observation is presented as a firsthand account that Aino put the thermos in her tote before checkout and left with it. The admitted testimony of Witness 1 likewise states that Aino placed the €24 thermos in her tote before checkout, left without paying, and was stopped just outside the shop. The record contains no challenge to identification or the staff member's opportunity to observe these actions. I find that the prosecutor established the observed conduct and Aino's identity as the person involved. 8. The prosecutor's submissions that Aino could have paid, that the thermos was more expensive than the other groceries, and that she chose a tote rather than a cart are arguments about the evidence, not additional testimony or records. The record does not establish Aino's ability to pay when stopped or what she did or said then through admitted testimony. The defendant's account that Aino offered to pay and forgot the thermos is also a submission relaying her account, not admitted testimony or a separate document. I consider it as an attributed account, with that limitation. Reasons 9. On the second issue, the staff account and admitted testimony reliably establish that Aino put the thermos in her tote before checkout and left with it unpaid. The receipt independently confirms that the thermos was not paid for. The identity-and-observation issue is therefore established. This finding concerns what happened, not why it happened. 10. On intent, the prosecutor relies on the combination of placing the thermos in a personal tote, paying for other groceries, and leaving without paying for the thermos. These circumstances can reasonably raise suspicion and may support an inference of deliberate taking. The fact that the thermos was in the tote rather than among the groceries is relevant, but the record does not establish why Aino placed it there. The receipt shows the other groceries were paid for, but does not establish that Aino deliberately excluded the thermos. The staff member did not report observing an act or statement that directly revealed Aino's intention. 11. The prosecutor's argument that Aino failed to prove payment or ability to pay after being stopped cannot fill the gap. The burden is on the prosecutor, and the absence of proof from the defendant is not proof of criminal intent. Nor does the record establish that Aino was unable to pay or refused to pay when stopped. The prosecutor's own account of the staff member's observation is limited to the visible actions of carrying the thermos out. 12. The defendant's reported explanation is not independently confirmed and does not establish that Aino forgot the thermos. The reported offer to pay, if made, is consistent with that explanation, but the record does not contain admitted testimony about the offer. I therefore do not find as an established fact that Aino forgot the thermos or offered to pay. However, the defendant need not establish that explanation. The question is whether the prosecutor proved intent. The receipt and observed conduct, considered together with the limits of the evidence, leave that required element uncertain. 13. Rule 1, Rule 8, and Rule 41 require proof of the claim, reject suspicion as a substitute for proof, and require each criminal element to be supported by reliable evidence. Applying those rules, the prosecutor has not proved intent to take the thermos without paying. The intent issue is not proven. Because that element is necessary to the requested criminal finding, the established evidence of nonpayment and carrying the thermos out does not justify a conviction on this record. Final order 14. The Public Prosecutor's request for a theft conviction is denied. Aino Lehtinen is not convicted on the allegation presented in this hearing. 15. The requested approximately €200 fine is denied. No amount is awarded or payable by either party under this judgment. This decision rests on the failure to prove intent on the available record; it does not find that Aino's reported explanation is independently established.