The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 take any measures against the Defendant’s motion for resumption of pleadings as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby infringing the Defendant’s right of defense. In so doing, it did not err by failing to take any measures against the Defendant’s motion for resumption of pleadings, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the provision on disclosure and notification of personal information is unconstitutional is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below's determination of sentencing is erroneous is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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