Appeal court reduced sentence from fine to corporal punishment due to insufficient evidence for specific acts.

The appellate court partially overturned the first-instance judgment by eliminating specific acts of vandalism from the criminal description due to insufficient evidence proving the defendant's direct involvement. The court reasoned that while the defendant disturbed the victims, other family members or tenants could have committed the acts of urinating on doors or throwing dead mice, creating reasonable doubt under the principle of in dubio pro reo. Consequently, the court reduced the social harm attributed to the defendant and commuted the fine to corporal punishment, considering the defendant's minor disability and lack of prior criminal record.