The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The argument that the lower court’s error of infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparagraph 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 has been imposed, an appeal is permitted on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, since the issue of whether the closure or closure of pleadings falls under the discretion of the court, the court below rejected the application for resumption of pleadings by the private legal counsel appointed after the closure of pleadings.

Even if so, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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