The article by Kwak Tae-ho revisits the summary of the first trial ruling regarding the December 3 insurrection handed down by Judge Ji Kwi-yeon of the Criminal Division 25 of the Seoul Central District Court. Despite numerous critiques from experts, the author emphasizes the historical inaccuracies within this landmark judgment. The court followed a previous ruling that classified the December 3 martial law as an insurrection and recognized the investigative authority of the High-ranking Officials Crimes Investigation Agency; however, much of the ruling was found to be hard to accept.

One of the key areas of contention was the court's assertion that the very declaration of martial law by the President does not equate to insurrection and is not subject to judicial review. The article argues against the interpretation of martial law provisions, suggesting that if the conditions for such a declaration are not met, it becomes illegal. The author critiques the court's logic, stating that sending military forces to the National Assembly could not justify a not-guilty verdict, and highlights a troubling analogy made by the court that suggests political pressure from the Democratic Party led to the martial law declaration, reflecting a governmental viewpoint akin to that of former President Yoon Suk-yeol.

Further complicating the ruling was the court's misunderstanding regarding the facts, particularly regarding the timing and preparation for the martial law. The article questions the judge's claims about the lack of advance planning for the martial law, pointing out promotions of senior military commanders who were key in the insurrection efforts. The implications of these misinterpretations not only tarnish the integrity of the judiciary but also risk undermining public trust in legal processes, as citizens are left to ponder who truly benefits from such verdicts and historical narratives.