Court acquits defendant due to insufficient evidence proving property damage from drifting, applying in dubio pro reo.

The court acquitted the defendant of property damage charges after finding the evidence insufficient to prove the specific state of the parking surface following the alleged drifting incident. While the defendant admitted to drifting, the prosecution failed to provide conclusive proof that the surface was damaged at that exact moment, as the entire area was later replaced. Consequently, the court applied the principle of in dubio pro reo, resolving the remaining factual uncertainties in favor of the accused.