In a recent opinion piece, the author Kim Jin-hae critiques the writing style of Judge Ji Gwi-yeon following his first-instance verdict in a high-profile case involving insurrection charges against President Yoon Suk-yeol. The author points out the repetitive use of the phrase "this court's judgment" in the ruling, arguing that such formalistic language detracts from the confidence and clarity expected in judicial decisions. The prose exemplifies problems in legal writing, where excessive qualification weakens the ruling's authority and impact.

Moreover, the author delves into the implications of the judge's word choice, particularly preferring institutional terms such as "this court" over personal identifiers like the 'judges'. This choice obscures individual accountability and paints the judgment as a detached and objective standpoint, thereby impairing the public's trust in the judicial process. The article highlights that such a shift towards impersonal language can dilute responsibility, hindering the ability of citizens to discern and critique judicial decisions effectively.

Ultimately, the commentary argues that the judges, shielded behind their institutional framework, fail to demonstrate the courage required to stand accountable for their decisions. This lack of personal connection in legal writing can lead to misjudgment, as it diminishes the gravity of the legal decisions made. The author insists that true accountability in legal rulings necessitates a more straightforward and responsible approach to writing, urging judges to align their rhetoric with the substantive nature of their judgments.