Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The prosecution asks the court to find Anton Lind guilty of minor theft and impose a fine. Anton asks to be found not guilty, or alternatively to receive the least severe available outcome. The record identifies the coffee’s value as SEK 89, but the prosecution has not established a separate monetary claim for that amount. 2. The parties agree that Anton left the shop with the coffee unpaid. The dispute is whether he deliberately left without paying, or instead believed that a checkout problem had been fixed. The prosecution has said that no further evidence about Anton’s knowledge is presently obtainable. Both sides have had an opportunity to make final submissions. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the coffee was unpaid. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the elements of its criminal claim, and Anton admits this fact. 4. The second and decisive issue is whether Anton knowingly left with the unpaid coffee. Under Rule 41, each required element in a criminal matter must be supported by reliable evidence. Rule 8 further makes clear that suspicion is not proof. The prosecution, as the party seeking a conviction, bears the burden on deliberate taking. Submissions of the parties 5. The prosecution argues that the employee saw Anton put the coffee in his bag and later stopped him beyond the payment area. It says that this sequence, together with the receipt showing no coffee, supports an inference that Anton deliberately bypassed payment. The prosecution acknowledges that the employee looked away before checkout was complete and did not see whether Anton tried to scan the coffee or what he believed about the warning. It nevertheless asks for a conviction and fine. 6. Anton denies deliberately taking the coffee. His account is that he tried to scan it, saw an “Assistance required” warning, and believed an employee had fixed the problem before he paid. He relies on a photograph showing that warning and a receipt for other groceries timed at 17:42. He admits that he left without checking the receipt and cannot identify the employee he says helped him. His alternative request for the least severe outcome need not be reached if the prosecution has not proved guilt. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt lists six paid grocery items totaling SEK 247, but does not list the coffee. Both parties accept that it relates to this shopping visit. Anton also admits that the coffee was unpaid and that he left without checking the receipt. The court finds nonpayment established. The receipt is reliable evidence of what was paid for, but it does not show why the coffee was omitted or what Anton knew. 8. The employee’s signed statement says the employee saw Anton move the coffee into his bag and later stopped him beyond the payment area. This is specific evidence supporting the prosecution’s account of Anton’s conduct. Its weight on the question of knowledge is limited by the employee’s own statement that they looked away to help another customer before Anton finished paying. The employee therefore did not observe the whole checkout process and cannot say whether Anton attempted to scan the coffee or whether he believed the warning had been resolved. 9. The photograph shows a self-checkout screen displaying “Assistance required” and a phone capture time of 17:40. It contains no coffee packet or employee. The photograph supports that a checkout warning appeared around the time Anton says he was shopping. Its connection to this particular transaction depends on Anton’s account, and it does not establish who addressed the warning or whether it was fixed. The receipt’s 17:42 time is consistent with a nearby checkout event but does not answer those questions. 10. Anton’s statements that he tried to scan the coffee and believed the problem had been fixed are attributed client accounts, not independent documents or admitted witness testimony. They are not conclusive proof of his belief. His admission that he left without checking the receipt is relevant and may reflect carelessness. But neither that admission nor the employee’s observations establish beyond the uncertainty in this record that Anton knew the coffee remained unpaid when he left. Reasons 11. The first issue is established. Anton’s admission and the receipt show that the coffee was not paid for. That finding does not itself establish the criminal element of deliberate taking. 12. On the second issue, the prosecution has evidence from which deliberate taking could be suspected: Anton bagged the coffee, left the payment area, and had not paid for it. But the employee did not see checkout finish. The prosecution itself recognizes that the employee cannot say whether Anton tried to scan the coffee or what he believed about the warning. The receipt confirms the result of the transaction, not Anton’s state of mind. 13. The defense evidence does not prove that an employee fixed the warning. The photograph shows neither an employee nor the coffee, and Anton cannot identify the person he says helped him. The court therefore does not find as an established fact that the warning was fixed or that Anton’s account is independently confirmed. However, Anton does not bear the burden of proving that account. The question is whether the prosecution’s evidence reliably proves deliberate taking despite the unresolved checkout gap. 14. Applying Rules 1, 2, 8, and 41, the court finds that it does not. The employee’s observation and the unpaid receipt support the prosecution’s case, but they leave a material uncertainty about what Anton knew when he left. The warning photo gives some support to the possibility of a checkout problem, without resolving what happened next. The prosecution has confirmed that no further obtainable evidence is identified. The remaining uncertainty must therefore be resolved against the party bearing the burden, not filled by assumption. Final order 15. The prosecution has established that the coffee was unpaid but has not proved that Anton knowingly left without paying. The charge of minor theft is denied, and Anton is found not guilty. No fine or other monetary award is ordered. The prosecution’s request for conviction and a fine is denied. Anton’s alternative request for a lesser outcome is unnecessary to decide because no conviction is entered. No payment between the parties is ordered.