Yang Moon-seok, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, was convicted of fraud on the 12th and has had his parliamentary seat revoked by the Supreme Court. Immediately after the ruling, he expressed on social media his intention to consult with his legal team about whether the Supreme Court's judgment overlooked the basic rights of his family. However, there are no constitutional provisions protecting the basic rights of family members association with fraud crimes, making the success of such an appeal highly unlikely. If Yang pursues this constitutional challenge, conservative media, which previously opposed the introduction of the constitutional appeal system, will likely seize this case to criticize the new system.

On the first day the constitutional appeals process commenced on the 12th, a significant number of cases flooded the Constitutional Court, with 20 cases submitted that day alone. Notably, among these were a case involving the cancellation of a forced deportation order against a Syrian national and another related to state compensation for delays in criminal compensation for abducted fishermen. A particularly noteworthy appeal not covered by the media is seeking to overturn a ruling that applied aggravated penalties for domestic violence based on Article 260, Section 2 of the Criminal Code. This section stipulates imprisonment of up to five years or fines of up to 7 million won for acts of violence against one's own or spouse's direct ancestors, which is considered significantly harsher than regular assault charges.

The request argues that this provision violates Article 11 of the Constitution, which states that all citizens are equal before the law, as South Korea is practically the only country that imposes aggravated penalties for crimes against direct ancestors. This legal stipulation is rooted in Confucian norms that emphasize the abhorrence of crimes against family. Notably, Japan, which served as a model for South Korea's criminal law, abolished the aggravated penalties for crimes against ancestors following a ruling of unconstitutionality in 1973. The implication of these appeals raises further questions about what constitutes a 'direct ancestor' in cases of domestic conflict, as one complainant was convicted after a dispute with his mother-in-law over child custody during divorce proceedings, prompting discussion about the relevance of Confucian kinship norms in modern legal contexts.