I find the media reporting of the case in the OP interesting. Every article I find simply says the judge acquitted him or found him not guilty. No mention about a jury decision. It would seem that it was likely a directed verdict. Judges normally are hesitant to do this unless the case against the accused is very week and should never have been brought to trial in the first place. Certainly video evidence should have been conclusive long before it ever came to trial.
There should be more information out there, but I have to wonder why the case was ever prosecuted. It would seem a sign that our judicial system is still quite unfair when priests are involved.
Glad it is resolved, but I think it should lead to a little more uproar.