The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The closing of pleadings and the resumption of pleadings which are closed or closed, or the postponement of sentencing dates, etc. shall belong to the court at its discretion;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21297 Decided February 28, 2018). Examining the record, the following facts are revealed.

The court below appointed a state appointed defense counsel for the defendant and set the first trial date, and submitted a private defense counsel at the time of the first trial date, and thereafter extended the next trial date to two weeks after the first trial date.

Since then, the private defense counsel newly replaced at the time of the second trial date requested the change or continuation of the trial date. However, the court below rejected the application for change or continuation of the trial date on the second trial date, and notified the grounds for rejection while closing pleadings. The newly replaced private defense counsel appeared on the second trial date and made pleadings for the defendant.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the above facts, the court below did not err by infringing upon the defendant's right of interview or defense counsel's right of defense, on the ground that the court below rejected a request for change or continuation of the trial date of a newly replaced private defense counsel and proceeded with the trial proceedings.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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