On the 19th, President Yoon Suk-yeol was sentenced to life imprisonment, marking a significant judicial decision with implications for South Korea's judicial leadership. The ruling identified him as guilty of rebellion, which raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the judiciary under the appointments made during his presidency. The article emphasizes that Jo Hee-dae, appointed by Yoon, now embodies the consequences of that appointment, as both he and the President share a loss of democratic legitimacy due to the ruling. This situation has not only compromised Jo's position but also poses constitutional questions about the exercise of judicial power without the necessary democratic legitimacy.

The author recalls a similar historical instance following South Korea's democratic transition when the appointment of a chief justice sparked controversy after the nation dismissed an autocratic regime. The article highlights how Yoon's presidential legitimacy is now undermined, comparable to former authoritarian leaders, thus signaling a broader crisis of accountability and oversight within the South Korean governmental system. The implications of the ruling extend beyond individual responsibility, suggesting a systemic issue within the judiciary that calls for a reassessment of authority and governance, particularly in regard to the appointments that can affect the separation of powers.

Ultimately, the article raises critical questions on the integrity and accountability of the judiciary when led by figures whose own legitimacy is in question. The discussion highlights the necessity for a judiciary founded on democratic principles, and urges Jo to consider resignation in light of the ruling that fundamentally challenges the democratic foundations of the judicial system in South Korea.