According to the records, the court of first instance appealed only to the prosecutor, on the ground that the sentencing was unfair, and the defendant did not appeal. The court below accepted the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing and reversed the judgment of first instance.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by failing to recognize mental or physical disorder cannot serve as a legitimate ground for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do579, May 28, 2009). Furthermore, pursuant to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is declared, an appeal for the reason of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendant, the foregoing argument is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, since the issue of resumption of closed pleadings belongs to the court's discretion, the court rendered a sentence on the date notified by the court below even though the application was filed for resumption of pleadings after the closure of pleadings.

(2) No person shall be deemed to be unlawful.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the court below erred by violating the principle of equality and infringing the defendant's right of defense.

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