The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant, although he was recommended by C to subscribe to the security deposits, rejected it, and although he did not consent to the subscription, the court below found the defendant as consenting to the preparation of the contract for subscription to the security deposits and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendant was guilty of unreasonable sentencing, in light of the fact that the Defendant revoked the complaint at the investigation stage, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined the assertion of mistake of facts as follows: ① the Defendant received the voice confirmation message at the (State) headquarters after receiving the solicitation from C to subscribe to DD installment goods; ② the Defendant received the solicitation call from C around September 19, 201 to subscribe to D installment goods; ② the Defendant subsequently received the voice message and the receipt of the subscription certificate from C; and then terminated the D installment goods at around December 9, 201; ③ the instant complaint was submitted to the Sejong Police Station on July 9, 2012; ③ each of the instant statements was consistent and specific; while the prosecution investigation was conducted at the first time, the Defendant appears to have received the above voice and E-mail’s motive to submit them; and ④ the Defendant appears to have received the above voice and E-mail’s motive to submit them; and ④ the Defendant appears to have received the above summary order at the time of the instant investigation.