2. Since the victim did not see the face of the offender, the direct evidence of this case is only one fingerprint of the defendant taken from the victim's home toilets.

The defendant asserts that his fingerprints can remain because he had a factory prior to 10 years, which had been installed at C when the voting was held by the majority voting.

It seems difficult to think that the fingerprints will still remain before 10 years, as the defendant's assertion, but it is true that the defendant had worked in the voting company. Therefore, it is difficult to see this argument as it is difficult.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he delivered Hen's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn

In this regard, in light of the Defendant’s credit card use details, around 18:57 on June 25, 2014, the following day, the Defendant issued an order from F (Gwanju City G) to take up a house and paid the price in KRW 19:49 after he left the house at the E-mail and the bus stops. On June 26, 2014, the following day, at around 07:25, the Defendant worked on the bus outside the I-type and the bus in front of Gwangju-si H.

In light of the above facts, the distance between the defendant's winter line, the place of crime (Seoul Seongdong-gu) and the defendant's house (H in Gwangju-si), the defendant's second children at the time of the case did not appear to have been able to move out at night due to the fact that it was difficult for the defendant to move out at night, and that the sufficient volume taken from the site of the case corresponds to the defendant's body, etc., only one point is the defendant's fingerprint at the end of denying the defendant's crime.