As the first trial ruling looms over former President Yoon Seok-youl concerning allegations of being the leader of insurrection, high-profile backers continue to voice their support, asserting that the declaration of emergency martial law was legitimate. Following the recent judgments by the Seoul Central District Court, sentencing former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to 23 years and former Minister of Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min to 7 years, the ruling party, People Power Party, has maintained a stance of silence, citing the principle of presumed innocence while calling for vigilance in the upcoming higher court deliberations.

The arguments made by Yoon's supporters illustrate a narrative that seeks to reframe the emergency martial law as a legal and constitutionally acceptable action. Notably, some of these supporters are even engaging in a 'cyber propaganda' campaign, attempting to alter the description of martial law on popular online platforms like Namu Wiki. This initiative, driven by claims of inaccuracies in the public discourse surrounding the emergency declaration, demonstrates how certain factions are mobilizing to reshape narratives to fortify their political stances against judicial proceedings.

The core of the supporters’ defense rests on the assertion that there are no precedents globally that deem a president's declaration of emergency state as rebellion worthy of conviction. This assertion has been echoed by various figures within the pro-Yoon camp, continuing amid differing opinions in the political landscape, as calls for clarifying the nature of the emergency law and its implications persist. The ongoing dialogue suggests a deepening division in the political sphere regarding legal accountability and the interpretations of emergency governance in South Korea.