1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant A in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on general traffic

2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant C in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on general traffic obstruction

3. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant E in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant E guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the general traffic obstruction and conspiracy, and the burden of proof in a criminal trial, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the burden of proof and probat

4. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, in light of the records, the lower court’s charges of this case against Defendant G for reasons indicated in its reasoning