Whether or not to resume closed pleadings is the matter belonging to the court's discretion.

Therefore, the court below rejected the defendant's application for resumption of pleading after the closure of pleading.

there is an error in law.

In light of the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal.

The argument that the lower court’s error of hearing in the determination of sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the sentencing date is delayed is not a legitimate ground for appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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