Amid recent legislation adjusting prosecutors' investigation and indictment powers, some critics questioned whether it amounted to an attempt to erase trials involving the president. The ruling bloc calls it institutional reform; the opposition counters it is a measure for one person.

Notably, some who have been friendly to the ruling side have expressed unease at what they call an 'overreaching approach'—a sign of disagreement within the base over method and pace.

Opponents of that criticism see it as a political offensive meant to muddy the legitimacy of reform. Interpretations diverge sharply by camp, taking on the character of a political dispute that is hard to verify.

Some argue that the substantive progress of trials and the intent of legislation belong on separate planes. How institutional change affects individual cases is expected to emerge concretely through future procedures.

Hwagyo Sibo does not prejudge the guilt or political intent of ongoing trials. We separate verified procedural facts from each camp's claims, leaving judgment to readers.