The column reviews the actions taken by President Kim Young-sam following the consolidation of three political parties in 1990 and his subsequent statements regarding the military coups of December 12 and the Gwangju Uprising. He characterized the December 12 events as a military coup but entrusted the judgment of those responsible to history, noting that punishment was complicated by the initial political compromise that prevented the prosecution of military figures like Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo. Despite this, public sentiment demanded accountability for the coup leaders, highlighting a significant dissonance between the law and society’s moral expectations.

Further, the article mentions that victims of the 12/12 coup attempted to pursue legal action against 34 individuals associated with the coup, leading to a controversial investigation by prosecutors. In 1994, the prosecution identified the incident as a pre-planned military insurrection aimed at maintaining power within the military, but ultimately chose not to indict those involved, citing concerns over national division and recognizing the alleged contributions of the accused to the country's development. This decision was perceived as a politically motivated act that dismissed collective public outrage, given the impending expiration of legal statutes for prosecution.

The piece reflects on the implications of the judiciary's stance and the public's reaction at the time, illustrating how legal decisions during pivotal moments in South Korea's history have often shaped national discourse. It emphasizes the ongoing struggle between legal frameworks and public understanding of justice, questioning whether laws can truly align with societal values and sentiments.