A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime scene of this case, the Defendant did not have any fact between “F” game room, which is the place where the crime was committed on the day of the crime, and there is no money or valuables taken by force. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of murdering the robbery of this case on the grounds of the blood trace (hereinafter “dives of this case”) remaining at the scene of the crime of this case, its appraisal result, and N’s statement, etc. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of murder or robbery, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Specifically, even if the blood trace of this case is the same as the Defendant’s fingerprint’s excellent suspension and delivery period, the appraisal of the identity of fingerprints at the National Police Agency and the Prosecutor’s Office on the date of the crime of murder cannot be ruled out that there is no possibility of any error by the Defendant, which is eventually dependent on the personal knowledge and technology of appraiser, and that there is no sufficient motive for the Defendant to kill the victim’s testimony of this case.