However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who actually operates F, a corporation that carries on the business of processing seaweeds in Jeonnam-gun E, and Defendant B is a person who collects meat.

On April 22, 2008, FF Co., Ltd., the creditor, set up a factory-related mortgage of KRW 325,00,00 of the maximum debt amount and the factory-related mortgage of KRW 325,00,00,00 as well as the factory-related equipment provided as security by the Defendant, on the ground that: (a) the victim's YY G, the YY G, the land and the building in E, and the tunnel-style winding machine in the above factory; (b) one blostrating machine; (c) one blostrating washing machine; (d) one streing machine; (d) one blostring machine; (e) one streing machine; (e) one streing machine; and (e) one streing door of the 2nd cirrating room, which is the creditor of F Co., Ltd., Ltd.; and (e) the Defendant created a duty to keep the factory-related equipment provided as security.

Defendant

A, as seen above, with respect to the factory machinery, etc., which was offered as security to the victim and kept by himself, the auction procedure was initiated following the decision of voluntary auction by the Gwangju District Court branch on October 2009. On December 6, 2010, A participated in the auction on December 6, 2010 and was awarded a successful bid in H’s name, but failed to pay the successful bid price. On April 18, 2011, A was awarded a second successful bid in the auction procedure conducted again in H’s name, but the said Gwangju District Court was subject to a decision of non-permission from the grant of the successful bid.

1. Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct around March 2010, in violation of the duty to keep in custody in accordance with the purpose of security, Defendant A brought one of the above tunnel-type winding equipment equivalent to KRW 23,200,000 at the market price offered as security in violation of the duty to keep in custody in the above factory.

As a result, the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to 23,200,000 won from I and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount as the victim.

2. Defendant A and Defendant B’s co-principal defendants are as above on April 18, 201.