1. As to the grounds of appeal disputing criminal facts, the lower court, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, determined that, inasmuch as it is recognized that not only the portion directly contributed by the Defendant but also the result that occurred by the persons in a joint principal relationship, the Defendant could not be exempted from liability, and that the Defendant could also be recognized as an intentional act of having a stone in the police room, as well as an intentional act of having a stone on the police room, inasmuch as it is recognized that there was an implied communication with respect to assault to prevent the search and seizure between the F party members at the time of server search and seizure, including the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding joint principal offenders, by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and by misapprehending the bounds of

2. As to the grounds of appeal disputing the legality of the performance of official duties, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is established when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties is not only within the abstract authority of the public official, but also within the authority of the public official, and must meet the requirements and methods as an act of official duties. Whether a certain performance of official duties is legitimate or not should be determined objectively and reasonably

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3485 Decided April 12, 2002; 2008Do4721 Decided April 28, 201, etc.)