The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant has stayed in the office of the victim with the permission of the victim, and that the victim has not demanded the eviction of the defendant.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the victim had consistently sought from the investigative agency to the court of the court below from May 14, 2013 as the victim's residence without prior notice, and the victim refused to request several times, but stated that the victim had been dispatched to the police at around 14:42 on May 15, 2013, the following day; the victim left 20 minutes away from 20 minutes after the defendant was found to her own residence and left her place at night at another place; the victim sent a text message to the defendant around 20:41 on May 14, 2013 that "the victim reported to be stolen" and the defendant also recognized the fact that the victim had been in his residence for the above time and stated some of the victim's statements, as stated in the judgment of the court below, in full view of the following facts:

Since it is sufficiently recognized that the Gu does not comply with the above provision, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, since the application column of the written judgment of the court below is clear that it is a clerical error in Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) and Article 70 and Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014), it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with