In South Korea, there is growing criticism of the first-instance ruling on President Yoon Seok-yeol's charges of insurrection, largely due to the peculiar legal reasoning employed by Judge Ji Gwi-yeon. Judge Ji has put forth unconventional arguments that deviate from standard legal interpretations, such as suggesting a radical shift from calculating detention periods in days to hours, which no other legal professionals supported. This change, introduced in the context of examining the legality of the Special Prosecutor's Office's investigative powers, raises serious concerns regarding consistency and adherence to established legal precedents.

The ruling has also drawn attention for its selective interpretation of prior Supreme Court cases regarding military emergency orders during the former regimes of Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo. Judge Ji is criticized for misrepresenting the precedents, which affirm that unconstitutional and illegal emergency declarations are indeed subject to judicial review. Such a distortion seemingly aims to protect Yoon Seok-yeol by endorsing the doctrine of “political acts” while dismissing the serious implications of illegal military actions. This misalignment with established jurisprudence has ignited debates on the independence and integrity of the judiciary in politically sensitive cases.

Moreover, the judgment raises profound questions about the accountability of public officials. By exonerating individuals involved in illegal actions under the premise of not meeting specific criteria for constitutional accountability, it suggests a leniency that could embolden future misconduct by state officials. The lack of criminal accountability in instances of unlawful emergency declarations could signal a dangerous precedent in South Korea's legal landscape, where political accountability might overshadow essential legal principles, potentially leading to increased political volatility and a diminished trust in legal institutions.