The article provides an assessment of the Seoul Central District Court's first-instance judgment on the charge of insurrection against Yoon Seok-youl by Judge Ji Gwi-yeon. It highlights that despite the strict legal standards and authoritarian legal logic, the court found the defendants guilty of insurrection, marking a significant precedent in South Korean law. The author reflects on the broader implications of the judgment, indicating that if this is the clarity of guilt established by such a court, it sets a troubling standard that could influence future rulings by any of the country's 3,000 judges.

The writer observes the strong public criticism surrounding the first-instance judgment, noting that many see it as intrinsically flawed. There exists a prevalent sentiment that while the judgments rendered may not sit well with the populace, the appellate process is now crucial. The appellate court, along with the Supreme Court, will bear a heavier historical and legal responsibility in correcting perceived injustices from the first-instance ruling, which many feel lacks validity.

In detailing the practical implications, the author expresses that despite its flaws, the first-instance judgment offers unique legal insights, particularly concerning the investigative authority of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). The ruling recognizes the CIO's role but also suggests that even without its oversight, the evidence collected from police on the insurrection charge would substantiate the prosecution's case, reinforcing the judiciary's complex interplay with political figures in South Korea, including Yoon Seok-youl himself.