The recent verdict by Judge Ji Kwi-yeon at the Seoul Central District Court has garnered attention for its unusual reference to historical figure Charles I of England during the sentencing of former President Yoon Seok-yeol, who faced life imprisonment on insurrection charges. In his ruling, Judge Ji drew parallels between the political turmoil of 17th-century England and current events in South Korea, particularly focusing on the context of civil strife and the consequences of rebelling against authoritative governance. The judge argued that even a king can be prosecuted for treason against the state's sovereignty, thereby emphasizing the gravity of Yoon's alleged actions.

The judge used the case of Charles I, who was executed after a series of conflicts with Parliament stemming from his autocratic rule, to illustrate that the law applies equally to those in power. He explained how Charles’s actions led to civil war and his subsequent downfall, stating that insurrection charges could be applicable to presidents as well. This historic reference ignited debates among the public and legal experts, as many questioned the relevance and appropriateness of citing a 17th-century execution to justify contemporary legal proceedings against a former head of state.

Additionally, while recognizing Yoon's lack of prior criminal offenses and his age as mitigating factors in sentencing, the judge ultimately decided on life imprisonment, indicating a serious view of the charges at hand. This decision has not only intensified discussions around Yoon’s trial but has also prompted a broader examination of the historical precedents being invoked in modern legal contexts, as social media users expressed confusion over the invocation of Charles I in this case.