A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

1. "201 Highest 1865";

A. Around August 24, 2009, Defendant A entered into a water custody consignment agreement to the effect that, with respect to the above CD where the victims E, victims E, victims F, victims G and victims exercise their right of retention, Defendant A received a right of retention from the victims and stored the custody of the custody.

In accordance with the above agreement, the defendant was entrusted by the victims with the custody of the above CD, and in the event that the creditors have filed an action to surrender the custody of the custody, the defendant has a duty to respond to the lawsuit so that the custody of the custody of the custody is not extinguished as the custodian of the custody.

On the other hand, B filed a lawsuit against the defendant on October 19, 2009 against the Seoul Eastern District Court about the name of building CD.

In spite of the occurrence of such duties as seen above, the Defendant submitted a preparatory document to the Seoul Eastern District Court on February 11, 2010, stating that “The Defendant may recognize and invoke all of the Plaintiff’s claims” to the Seoul East Eastern District Court, “I have the honor to recognize and invoke all of the Plaintiff’s claims.”

After that, on March 30, 2010, the Defendant again submitted a preparatory document stating that “A, a statement, has the possibility to accept all of the Plaintiff’s arguments,” in the same adjudication division.

As a result, the Defendant had B acquire possession of the above CD and had the victims lose their right of retention for the above CD, but the victims dismissed the Defendant as the trustee and exercised their right of revocation against the failure to achieve the intent.

B. Defendant B: (a) on February 11, 2010, at the place of business, and against Defendant A.