A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Defendant A prevents the obligees from exercising their individual rights without permission, and Defendant A is a F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) in relation to LG chemical construction.

G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) is anticipated to narrow the field of the site.

409 tons of H-Sn beamline material (hereinafter referred to as “instant material”).

2) Defendant B received the instant materials under the pretext of payment in kind on the basis of the claim for construction price against F. As such, there was no fact that the instant materials were concealed in collusion with A, since Defendant B received the instant materials under the pretext of payment in kind.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and twenty hours of community service, ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 643 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides for the punishment of “the act of an obligor destroying or concealing an obligor’s property or disposing of it unfavorably to the obligee for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or another person or impairing the obligee.” In the crime of fraud rehabilitation, “the concealment of property” refers to making it impossible or difficult to detect the property, and includes not only cases where the location of the property is unknown, but also cases where the ownership of the property is unclear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do4008, Jul. 9, 2009; 2008Do6950, Jan. 30, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the health care unit, the lower court, and the trial court’s duly adopted and investigated each of the following facts, which are acknowledged by evidence, for the purpose of undermining the general creditors.