Court acquits defendant of vandalism due to unresolved doubts regarding intent and procedural errors.

The appellate court overturned the first-instance verdict and acquitted the defendant of the charge of vandalism. The defense argued that the lower court failed to resolve factual ambiguities regarding the specific damage to the sign and incorrectly assessed the defendant's intent. The court agreed, noting that the defendant's prior civil judgment granting him access to his property, combined with his actions of removing and discarding the sign, strongly suggested he intended to clear the path rather than destroy the property.