Well, exactly ya boob.
Here’s an example.
Two children allege that their acting teacher touched them inappropriately during class. Both alleged offences happened independently from the other and there were no witnesses other than the alleged victims. The prosecution mount an argument based on circumstantial evidence because the only witness to each offence is a child and there is no other supporting evidence.
The judge and or jury acquit the accused based on a lack of evidence rather than find the accused not guilty.
The prosecution could not provide supporting evidence eg, by way of cctv or a witness to the alleged event other than the victim. The defence could not provide supporting evidence by way of an alibi eg, the accused was overseas at the time of the alleged offence or a credible witness came forward to state that he or she was with the accused at the time of the offence.
Now, the outcome is the same (accused walks free) however, the reasoning is not.
Not guilty means the accused didn’t do it. Acquitted means the prosecution couldn’t prove beyond doubt that the accused did do it.
That’s a big difference.
Read it slowly if it helps you understand.