The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

For a period of 10 years, the information on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When taking fingerprints at the scene of the crime committed by Defendant 1) against the victim C and D, it is necessary to confirm the witness prior to the taking of fingerprint, taking photographs prior to the taking in order to clarify the place where the object detected when detecting the fingerprint, and, when taking on the scene, taking necessary matters on the back thereof, and preparing a report on taking samples after taking samples must comply with due process regarding the taking of fingerprint.

However, the court below's fingerprints, which is used as evidence of conviction against the facts charged, such as robbery in this case, is a evidence obtained without confirmation of the observer, and without due process, should exclude the admissibility of evidence.

In addition, in light of the fact that the victim or the police officer in charge knew of the fact that his fingerprints was discovered at the scene, and that the investigation report prepared three months after the occurrence of the case states that “no lockeds or oil goods, etc. have been discovered,” the result of fingerprint appraisal which is used as evidence of conviction against the facts charged, such as robbery and injury in this case, cannot be readily concluded that the result of fingerprint appraisal is about the fingerprints taken at the scene

In addition, the fingerprint of this case is not the entire fingerprint, but the fingerprint of this case was partially damaged, so it is sufficient to have errors in the fingerprint appraisal, and the victim stated that it is highly likely that he will not be the criminal defendant.

Nevertheless, without any other evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge, such as the robbery in this case, solely on the basis of the result of the appraisal of fingerprints highly likely to have an error, even if it was the fingerprints taken at the scene of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending this case.