The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether or not to resume closed pleadings is a matter belonging to the court’s discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6503, Oct. 28, 2005). Accordingly, after the closure of pleadings, the court below rendered a ruling without accepting the Defendant’s motion for resumption of pleadings, as the court below, provided that the grounds for appeal, which was withdrawn at the second trial date, are different from those for the second trial, and provided another opportunity to assert the grounds for appeal.

Even if the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the defendant's right of defense by dismissing the defendant's application for resumption of pleading as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued misunderstanding of the legal principles on the grounds of appeal along with unfair sentencing, but at the second trial date, withdrawn the grounds for appeal of misunderstanding of the legal principles as alleged.

In such a case, the allegation that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, as long as the defendant has left only unfair sentencing on the ground of appeal, it cannot be deemed that the court below did not ex officio decide any circumstances other than sentencing as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by violating the law as to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The grounds of appeal that the court below erred by violating the law

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