Appeal court acquits defendant due to unresolved evidentiary doubts regarding potato seedling destruction. Unresolved doubts lead to acquittal under the principle of in dubio pro reo.

The appeal court overturned the first-instance verdict, acquitting the defendant of destroying potato seedlings. The defense argued that the victim's identification was unreliable due to poor visibility and that the destruction of seedlings could be attributed to frost rather than human action. The court found these doubts unresolvable and applied the principle of in dubio pro reo, ruling that the evidence was insufficient to convict.