The National Assembly is set to sequentially vote on the so-called 'Judicial Reform 3 Laws' from the 25th, amid a significant decline in public trust in the judiciary since the state of emergency in December 3. The ruling party, led by the Democratic Party, is pushing forward with judicial reforms that have gained public consensus, while other problematic laws require further deliberation. It is crucial to communicate actively with citizens to ensure the goal of strengthening democratic control over the judiciary is achieved coherently, alongside presenting a long-term reform roadmap to address existing deficiencies. Among the proposed laws, the crime of legal distortion (revised criminal law) has shown the most substantial divergence in opinions between public sentiment and expert views. The public has largely supported this law due to cases like the manipulation of evidence by prosecutors, which have escaped legal repercussions. However, the broad wording of the proposed law raises concerns over potential misuse, necessitating careful deliberation to resolve ambiguity in its regulations. Furthermore, the judicial remedy bill is simply a restoration of norms that had been ignored since the Constitutional Court's establishment in 1988, necessitating the inclusion of previously excluded cases. Similarly, the proposed increase in Supreme Court justices aligns with the court's own acknowledgment of serious case backlogs, emphasizing the need for resource enhancement in lower courts. Moving forward, the reform agenda should shift from piecemeal initiatives to comprehensive strategies that stimulate public discourse, making the lack of clarity surrounding significant proposals, like the abolition of the court administration office, all the more disappointing.