2. According to the records of this case, it is confirmed that the defendant was at the time of committing the crime that the defendant was at the time of entering the sick room where the victim was hospitalized, but the situation where the nurse and staff of the hospital providing meals other than the defendant entered the sick room can be confirmed, and the victim also confirmed that he did not directly witness the crime in this court, and that he did not have any money on the part of the nurse and staff of the hospital providing meals.

In addition, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that a third party, not the defendant, might have stolen cash, considering the fact that the sick room where the victim was hospitalized, rather than one person, was hospitalized with another man at the time of the instant crime. In addition, on March 23, 2019 at the time of the first statement to the police around March 23, 2019, the victim was placed outside the wall and was laid down under the wall above the bed, but the wall was found to have been located under the bed around 9:0 on the following day, but on around 9:0 on the following day.

The statement is, however, that the victim reversed the statement after the victim, and there was no cash since the victim sleeps on the bend side of the bend, and there was no cash on the bend side of the wall.

The rationale behind the reversal of the statement on the wall's position, etc. is that there is no consistency in the statement by the reversal of the statement by the investigative agency, and whether the reason for the reversal of the statement by the investigative agency "domination is not a correct memory of all the present situation at the present time, but is in the front of the beer or in the front of the beer."