According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal along with unfair sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial of the court below

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the credibility of confessions, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 24 (3) 5 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 13912, Jan. 27, 2016), or by misapprehending the legal principles as to errors in law cannot be

In addition, since the issue of resumption of closed pleadings belongs to the court's discretion, it cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the court below rejected the defendant's application for resumption of pleadings after the closing of pleadings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do769, Jun. 10, 1986; 2008Do10365, Jan. 15, 2009). Accordingly, the court below erred in incomplete deliberation.

The right of defense and the right of trial of the defendant cannot be deemed to have been infringed.

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