The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that on the day of the instant case, the Defendant entered two times in the victim D’s residence.

However, around 11:20 on the same day, the victim did not call the victim's moving-out request to the police because the victim was about to move-out to the police. On the same day, around 11:40 on the same day, the victim was entering the defendant's house, and there was no demand for moving-out. Rather, the police officer called-out at the time was sealed the defendant in the residence of the victim.

B. As to the insult, the Defendant did not have made a statement to the victim H as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination:

A. As to the refusal to leave, the lower court also asserted the same purport, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in full view of the circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined, and recognized the fact that the Defendant did not comply with the Defendant’s request for withdrawal as stated in this part of the facts charged.

The decision was determined.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court (i.e., police officersO dispatched at the time of the instant case, upon receiving a report from this court and two times, and each time they were called the victim and the defendant (O was called the "owner," but this appears to be called the victim of the revenue in light of the front and rear context), and the victim was standing at home to the defendant.

The statements are consistent with the statements of the victim and I, and ② the defendant was sealed into the house of the victim.

One of the arguments, the police officer called to resolve the dispute is the defendant.