The article discusses the widespread misinterpretation of Socrates' death, particularly the phrase 'even unjust laws are laws,' which has been used in South Korean education as a moral example. It explains how this phrase has been taught as an illustration of obedience to the law, with teachers citing Socrates' refusal to escape his sentence as a justification for following unjust laws. This narrative has been prevalent in the educational system until recent interventions by human rights organizations prompted a revision in the curriculum, although the factual inaccuracies surrounding Socrates' final moments remained largely unchallenged until the works of a few scholars in the 1990s.

The misinterpretation of Socrates' story has been linked to South Korea's historical struggles with authoritarian governance, where the phrase was adopted to promote blind compliance rather than critical engagement with unjust laws. The author argues that the perpetuation of this idea reflects a failure among educators, legal scholars, and judiciary figures to engage deeply with Platonic dialogues that reveal the complexity of Socrates' philosophy. It suggests that this misunderstanding has significant implications for how citizens perceive their relationship with laws and the moral obligations that come with citizenship, particularly in a modern democracy.

As such, the article argues that the mythologization of Socrates' adherence to unjust laws hampers critical dialogue about legal and moral obligations in contemporary society. The commentary reflects a deeper need for reform in education, emphasizing that understanding philosophical concepts responsibly must inform how citizens relate to legislation and governance. The article calls for a re-evaluation of legal education and discourse to prevent the misuse of philosophical ideas in justifying authoritarianism or blind obedience to laws.