The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, and that Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, which are provisions for reduction and exemption due to confession, are not applied when determining the sentence against the Defendant.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of false accusation and confession, which is a necessary reason for the necessary reduction

2. Where an application for resumption of pleadings is filed after the closure of pleadings, the issue of whether to resume closed pleadings shall belong to the court's discretion;

Therefore, as long as the public prosecutor or the defendant provided a sufficient opportunity to assert and prove, the court rejected the subsequent application for resumption of the pleading, unless there are special circumstances.

On the contrary, it cannot be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10365, Jan. 15, 2009). According to the records, the court below may find out that the defendant and the national defense counsel provided a sufficient opportunity to assert and prove, but concluded the pleading, and otherwise, there was any error in the measures that the court below did not resume the pleading after the closure of the pleading.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the appeal is dismissed.

3. According to the records, the Defendant stated in the court below’s third trial date that he would have the intention to continue the examination of witness while requesting the appointment of the national defense counsel at the court below’s third trial date and obtaining the assistance of the national defense counsel.

At the request of the defendant, the measure that the court of original judgment appoints a national defense counsel for the defendant and that the defendant should be tried under the assistance of the national defense counsel is legitimate.

Therefore, against the defendant's will.