The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who was the owner of the instant ethylene, was delegated the sale of the instant ethylene and sold it. While not notified by the above E of the termination of the delegation contract, the Defendant only sold the instant ethylene, and was unaware of the fact that the instant ethylene was transferred to the victim D, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit larceny.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, that: (a) on October 26, 2012, the police officer stated that the Defendant was unable to sell ethylene any longer (Evidence No. 66 pages); (b) on October 26, 2012, the Defendant met the husband of E; and (c) was asked the Defendant to accept the remaining ethylene at KRW 4 million each, regardless of whether the Defendant was retired from the husband of E or not (Evidence No. 119, 120 pages of the evidence record); and (c) on the other hand, the Defendant reversed the aforementioned statement, but recognized that the Defendant sold the instant ethyl larceny contract to the Defendant with the knowledge of the termination of delegation (Evidence No. 122 pages).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. It appears that the defendant did not have any record of having been punished as a same kind of crime, or that he did not recognize his wrong even before the trial of the case, and the defendant did not agree with the victim.