The piece by Kim Eun-sik reflects on the public perception of judges in South Korea, paralleling it with baseball umpires to illustrate how controversial decisions can lead to judges being remembered more for their mistakes than their successes. Unlike umpires, whose names are recalled due to questionable calls, most citizens struggle to remember judges’ names despite their critical role in the justice system. In a climate where significant judicial decisions have sparked public interest, the article hints at a growing anxiety regarding the variability of judgments based on who is presiding over a case.

Furthermore, the author discusses the dichotomy faced by citizens today: on one hand, there is a reliance on the legal system as a final safeguard against injustice, while on the other, there's the unsettling realization that the perception of fairness can heavily depend on individual judges and their interpretations of the law. This inconsistency leads to deeper societal anxieties and a questioning of the judicial system's integrity, reminiscent of the way fans come to terms with the subjective nature of sports officiating.

Ultimately, Kim Eun-sik emphasizes that while technology has influenced many areas of evaluation (like video reviews in sports), the complexities of the judicial process resist simple solutions. The expectation of objectivity in judges is inherently flawed, as they are human; therefore, the aspiration for fairness in judgments is crucial for restoring public faith in the system, which is paramount in order to maintain societal order and trust.