Wow, do you really not understand what was stated, or are you simply attempting to manipulate words for your purpose?
Allow me to rephrase.
Assuming arguendo that their was any such admittance, which there was not, in plain English two courts have now found him legally not liable for any crime, and one court found that he was subject to an illegal arrest and search.
No crime was committed. I cannot write this either in more simple English, nor in more precise terms.
I refer you to the court documents and the appeals court decisions for further discussion of this now legally established fact.
I genuinely thought you were trying to stipulate he'd stolen the code, from your first comment (where you made a point of talking about his intent) and your second, where you simplified not to "did he steal code" but "did he steal code for profit".
Since we're at that unproductive point in the discussion where we're spending more time parsing than actually discussing, I'm going to go ahead and bow out now.
And in this case, it was not so much the default position as the actual position.