The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not comply with the request from the victim for the eviction and did not commit an indecent act against the victim since he did not have received the request from the victim for the eviction.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) around September 4, 2015 through around September 11, 2015, and (ii) around September 11, 2015, the victim found a business establishment operated by the victim by the victim from investigative agency to the court below; (iii) since the defendant had been found in the victim's business establishment and interfered with his business or made an obscene statement to the victim; (iv) on September 11, 2015, the defendant's business ends; and (v) on September 11, 2015, the police officer I dispatched to the above business establishment upon the victim's report from the victim at the time of the instant crime on September 11, 2015, at the time of request of the victim to leave the business establishment, the victim, who was the police officer, had been dispatched from the victim at the time of leaving the business establishment at around 2015.

In light of the fact that the defendant was under control due to non-compliance with the Gu, the defendant is required to leave the victim's business establishment from the victim around September 4, 2015 and September 11, 2015.

It may be fully recognized that the Gu has received the Gu but it has not complied with it.

B. The instant case.