Judge acquits 'joyrider' of theft: Is taking an un-keyed scooter and returning it not considered stealing?

In late July last year, a man surnamed Huang in Yunlin discovered that the scooters of owners surnamed Lin and Ling had their keys left in. He rode them away twice to visit friends, once for about 1 hour and another time for about 1.5 hours. After using them, he rode the vehicles back to their original spots, acting as if nothing happened, and did not refill the gasoline. The prosecution argued that using someone else's scooter without permission and consuming the gasoline in the tank was equivalent to appropriating someone else's gasoline, and thus indicted him for theft. The first trial judge ruled Huang not guilty. The prosecution appealed, emphasizing that he rode away two scooters consecutively for short periods, knowingly consuming fuel without compensation, and thus had the subjective intent to steal the gasoline. Huang argued that he was merely "temporarily borrowing the vehicle" and had returned it before the police investigation, thus having no intention of appropriating it. The Tainan High Court of Appeals ruled that the crime of theft in the Criminal Code requires "unlawful intent to possess." Huang only used the vehicle for a short period and returned it, which constitutes "use theft" and does not involve an intent to permanently possess the vehicle or the fuel, thus falling outside the scope of criminal punishment. As for the fuel consumption, the judge stated it was an inevitable consequence of driving and one cannot infer the cause from the effect, thus concluding that he did not ride the vehicle solely to steal fuel. The case was deemed a civil dispute, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was finalized. After this verdict was revealed, it sparked heated discussions in society regarding the boundaries between "use theft" and criminal law. Many citizens are concerned that if this precedent is set, it may increase the risk of vehicle owners' property being arbitrarily borrowed by others, and whether "borrowing and returning" can truly absolve criminal responsibility has become a focal point of public attention. ‼️Do you think this case, where someone was acquitted for "riding and then returning," is reasonable?‼️ Okay, it's confirmed, the justice system is truly hopeless. They can acquit someone for this?? I seriously suspect the judge and the criminal are in cahoots 🤬