The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even in the case of a crime with heavy statutory penalty, such as murder, the conviction may be recognized only by indirect evidence without direct evidence.

However, in a case where a conviction is found, it shall be determined carefully by indirect evidence related to the facts charged. In a case where an indirect fact which is the premise of a major fact is acknowledged by indirect evidence, the proof should reach the extent that the evidence does not allow a reasonable doubt. One of such indirect facts must not be contradictory and contradictory to each other, but should be supported by logical and empirical rules and scientific rules.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1902 Decided May 26, 2011, etc.). The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, and reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years, on the following grounds: (a) the lower court acknowledged the facts charged by the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court; (b)

In other words, in one of the two pieces of tobacco discovered at the scene of crime, the victim's DNA was detected in the defendant's DNA, and in the other, the victim's DNA was detected in the two pieces of tobacco. In full view of the location, type, condition, weather conditions at the time of the crime, etc. of the two pieces of tobacco, it is highly likely that the defendant and the victim used only on the day of the crime, and that the two pieces of tobacco was discarded at that time.

In addition, considering the fact that the witness F makes a statement about the start of the male's appearance at the scene of crime or makes a statement to confirm the male's identity after being presented a photograph, the conditions to enhance the credibility of the witness's statement are attached, and that there is no error in the recognition process, the witness F is highly likely to be the defendant.

Furthermore, considering all the circumstances, the offender's clothes, etc. are confined to the drainage channel.