Judge Ji Gwi-yeon [Photo=Yonhap News]

While Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's life sentence may superficially appear to lack legal consistency, one might speculate that behind it lies a deeply agonizing decision, born from concern for the nation's survival. 

This is because if an acquittal had been handed down, the nation would have likely plunged into uncontrollable chaos due to the tyranny of pro-North Korean leftist forces gaining momentum. 

What if Judge Ji chose the path of self-contradiction in logic, establishing a 'shield' of life imprisonment to avoid extreme national turmoil? Let us offer the most hopeful interpretation of his verdict. 

First, it is a desperate measure (苦肉之策) to curb the unchecked advance of the left.

In a situation where leftist forces, led by Representative Lee Jae-myung, are pressuring the judiciary and paralyzing state affairs, 'practical survival' would have been prioritized over legal doctrine. 

Last March, Judge Ji was the individual who upheld conservative values by releasing President Yoon Suk-yeol based on the logic that the "Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials has no investigative authority." 

His adoption of the opposite logic this time may not be due to ignorance. Rather, it could be an act of sacrificing his own reputation and accepting logical inconsistency to 'buy time' and protect the country from the frenzied attacks of the left. 

(Of course, the physical coercion exerted by Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae on the judiciary overall may have played a role in this process, and Judge Ji may have demonstrated ingenuity through a feigned weakness or feigned strength (虛虛實實) amidst the turmoil.)

Second, it is a strategic 'self-negation' aimed at awakening intellectuals and consolidating the conservative base.

We must pay attention to Judge Ji's reference to the case of Charles I. Historically, Cromwell and those who fabricated the rebellion that led to Charles I's execution were later subjected to severe punishment, including posthumous desecration of their bodies, by Charles II, who ascended the throne. 

The invocation of Charles I, whose case is similar to President Yoon Suk-yeol's, is a paradoxical suggestion that the decision of the parliament at the time was wrong. 

The fact that Judge Ji, while convicting of rebellion, acknowledged that "the President had no adequate measures to counter the impeachment of officials and budget cuts by the National Assembly" prior to the declaration of martial law is particularly significant. 

Furthermore, what does the clarification that the prosecution under Article 84 of the Constitution refers to 'the filing of charges' imply? If he had completely succumbed to judicial coercion, he would not have bothered to mention Article 84 of the Constitution and leave room for connection to Lee Jae-myung's trial. 

This evident contradiction is like a 'trick' to make the intellectuals and university students of a free Korea see through the injustice of the verdict next March. By portraying himself as a 'fool,' Judge Ji has sent a strong signal that the conservative right must shed its complacency, criticize the current government's mistakes, and unite. 

Third, it is a call for decisive action to Representative Jang Dong-hyuk and the conservative political sphere.

The ball is now in the court of politics. If Representative Jang Dong-hyuk, who has declared a break with the 'pro-Yoon' faction, truly wishes to stand with the people, he must read the desperate message Judge Ji has hidden in his ruling. 

Instead of settling for the comfort of political power, one must face the truth in the public square. It is time to draw a line in the sand with a boycott of local elections and resignations from parliamentary seats, and to sincerely unite with the conservative right-wing citizens who have been advocating for a free Korea on the streets for the past decade. 

Judge Ji Gwi-yeon's verdict should not be a target of criticism, but rather a 'final plea' for the conservatives to restore the crumbling rule of law themselves. The three months remaining until the 6.3 local elections are longer than the one month between the 3.15 fraudulent election and the 4.19 revolution. They will attempt to tarnish the local elections with fraud as well. 

The conservative side must now unite through the window of opportunity opened by Judge Ji. Will they, in cooperation with the United States by early April, punish the opposition with the power of the people, or will they confirm and overturn another fraud three months later? 

That may well be the future of Korea that Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, a legal professional, sought to protect by sacrificing his legal consistency. 

※ This column may differ from the editorial direction of this publication. 

◆ Jeong Seong-hong

Chairman of the Korea-US-Japan Newspaper