The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal that the Defendant shall leave the victim E to the effect that “I will go to the police if I go to the hospital.”

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even if the defendant did not have received the Gu, and even if the defendant's refusal to leave was recognized, this constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, since he visited the hospital E to perform the credit collection business.

2. Summary of evacuation from the place of residence of a person;

It is established that the Gu received and did not comply with such order, and is required to leave.

The Gu shall be limited to one time, and it is not necessarily required to be made explicitly.

On January 28, 2013, the court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, namely, ① the defendant, upon being entrusted with the collection of claims against E by the creditor, found the hospital operated by E with D on January 11, 2013, and talked that E would receive money, ② the defendant did not make a statement to the head of E, and the defendant did not return to the hospital on the following day: (i) the defendant did not request the head of E to make a business registration certificate at 13:30 another hospital, and (ii) the defendant did not make a statement to the defendant that "I will interfere with the medical treatment," and the defendant did not return to the hospital." (ii) At around 13:30 another hospital, the defendant did not request the head of E to do so, and the police did not return to the hospital." (iii) The defendant did not make a statement to the court below that he did not return to the hospital.