Can two instances resolve a road accident differently?

I read a story about a road accident in Kyiv where two courts – district and appellate – evaluated the same evidence differently: the first closed the case due to lack of violation, while the second found a violation in the driver's actions but could not impose a penalty due to the statute of limitations. My question is: if different courts interpret the same situation so differently, then how, in general, can I as a driver understand whether I was right, and is there a chance to be fully exonerated if the appeal does not remove legal blame but simply closes the case due to time limits?