According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court’s judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and violating the principle of exclusion from illegally collected evidence is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the issue of resumption of closed pleadings is the matter belonging to the court's discretion.

Therefore, the court below's failure to resume a pleading for the additional statement of a private legal counsel appointed after the closure of pleadings cannot be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6503, Oct. 28, 2005, etc.). Accordingly, the defendant's right to assistance or defense, etc. was infringed upon by the defendant's legal counsel.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.