A judicial re-evaluation of the soldiers who participated in the martial law will be necessary once the administration changes.

‌This martial law incident is fundamentally different from the May 16 military coup or the December 12 incident.
The previous two cases were clearly acts of treason carried out by clandestine organizations within the military through conspiracy without the command of the Commander-in-Chief.
However, in this martial law case,
at least from the soldiers' perspective, they were merely executing orders issued by the Commander-in-Chief using the authority granted by the people.
Even if the martial law itself lacked legitimacy and the encroachment on the National Assembly was unconstitutional,
martial law is something triggered only in urgent situations,
and it is implemented when decisive and urgent action is required.
If frontline military commanders were to pause and judge whether an action complies with the Constitution or laws, or what might happen if they fail later,
it could result in failing to achieve the very purpose of the martial law.
In the future, even if a President declares martial law believing that a critical security crisis threatening the nation's existence has occurred and that it is necessary to overcome it,
military commanders must still question and evaluate the President's inherent right of military command.
I believe Yoon Suk-yeol deserves the death penalty and that the martial law was wrong,
but separately from that, except for specific cases where soldiers prepared in advance knowing the unconstitutionality of the martial law,
I believe soldiers should not be held judicially liable for following the President's orders.