The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for

In addition, Article 300 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court may separate or consolidate pleadings ex officio or at the request of the public prosecutor, the defendant, or his/her defense counsel. Thus, even if the court below rejected the application for separation of pleadings, it is not unlawful.

Furthermore, according to the records, the defendant and the defense counsel withdrawn the application for separation of pleadings during the first trial of the court below, so there is no illegality as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the issue of whether to change the trial date belongs to the court's discretion, so it is not unlawful even if the court below rejected the application for change of trial date.

On the other hand, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the court below failed to properly have the assistance of a public defender in the trial proceedings cannot be accepted in light of the content and degree of the defense activities of the public defender in the court below.

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