2. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant, while being drunk in a restaurant as stated in the facts charged, he was aware of the victim's new shoes at his new site and was merely a report and did not have an intention to larceny.

On the other hand, the statement of the witness E's testimony and the statement of the E's statement that seem to correspond to the facts charged are merely the statement that the defendant knew that he was not a new person at the time, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325.