The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant and his defense counsel considered that the victim's building "E" is written in a letter of falling under the victim's building, and there is only a fact that the victim did not want to do so in appearance, and there is no fact that the victim failed to do so as stated in the facts

2. The judgment of the court below also made the same argument in the court below, and comprehensively based on the evidence as stated in the judgment below, the defendant added 1,2, and 3 stories among the victim's buildings to 1,2, and 3 stories. However, the court below found that the defendant's name "A" was fallen in the stairs of the building, and that the defendant's name was added to the part where the defendant's abortion was affixed, and that the defendant's inspection was conducted on the same as the defendant's name, the court below did not lawfully recognize that the defendant's act was the same as the defendant's non-explos in the light of the rule of experience, and that the defendant's refusal to do so was about to do so without the lessor's permission. The court below found that the defendant's refusal to do so was the same as the defendant's non-explos, and that the defendant's act was not the same as the defendant's non-explosing statement and the defendant's refusal to do so.