The key issues in this warrant review were who actually exercised military command authority and whether there was a vacuum in command authority in a martial law situation. The special prosecutor's team held former Chairman Kim responsible for participating in the civil war, citing that, despite being aware of the illegality of the martial law declaration as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he did not stop the deployment of troops to the National Assembly and instead issued a fragmentary order to prioritize martial law affairs. The special prosecutor determined that his dismissal of the problems with the martial law process and the need to withdraw troops despite being briefed on numerous occasions by his staff was a clear dereliction of duty and engagement in an important civil war mission. However, former Chairman Kim's side countered that since the situation at the time was under the direct command of the Minister of National Defense, he had no actual operational command authority to withdraw troops as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After reviewing the logic of both sides, the court appears to have acknowledged that legal interpretations may differ regarding former Chairman Kim's specific role and scope of responsibility, and decided to dismiss the case to ensure the right to defense.

Although former Chairman Kim escaped arrest, former Deputy Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Jeong Jin-pal, former Army Headquarters Policy Director Kim Heung-joon, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff War Force Posture Inspection Train Chief Lee Jae-sik, who were also subject to warrants, were arrested and imprisoned side by side. The fact that the court judged that there was a risk of them destroying evidence is an important point that suggests the future direction of this investigation. Some are raising the possibility that former Chairman Kim, who had a Navy background, was marginalized in the process of forming the Martial Law Command, and that former Chairman Kim was excluded from actual command as the Army-centered line took the lead. Against this structural background, the court's view that there is a high possibility that the staff in charge of martial law work would attempt to destroy evidence implies that the statements of the working staff will be a decisive key in uncovering the true nature of the case. As a result, former Chairman Kim avoided arrest, but the special prosecutor's pressure on him is expected to intensify due to the arrest of his associates.

This issue goes beyond simply determining whether an individual soldier committed a crime, and raises serious topics of 'command system' and 'political neutrality' within the Korean military organization. The interpretation of who the military command authority belongs to immediately after the declaration of martial law is a point where there is a sharp difference between the special prosecutor and the suspect. The previous special investigation into the civil war concluded that it was difficult to hold former Chairman Kim responsible because the command of military operations was transferred to the martial law commander, but the second comprehensive special investigation overturned this and is strongly pushing the theory of responsibility for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In particular, as suspicions are growing that preparations for the so-called 'second martial law' were discussed even after the National Assembly passed the request to lift the military, the scope of the investigation is expanding beyond simple participation to uncovering the true nature of the rebellion conspiracy. In this process, the fact that former Chairman Kim's defense team and the special prosecutors were people who had clashed in past impeachment trials shows that this case goes beyond legal debate and is an extension of political and historical responsibility.

This decision of the court will act as a significant variable in the future investigation process. The dismissal of the warrant against former Chairman Kim is highly likely to be interpreted as an unspoken message from the court that the investigation record needs to be strengthened in a situation where he completely denies the charges. The special prosecutor is expected to focus on securing reinforcing evidence that can prove former Chairman Kim's criminal charges by closely analyzing the reasons for the dismissal, and is expected to focus on questioning the arrested staff to determine whether former Chairman Kim exercised actual command authority at the time. Additionally, controversy is expected to continue as to whether former Chairman Kim's claim that he could not do anything under martial law conforms to national common sense. The judiciary has adhered to the principle of guaranteeing the right to defense, but the question of whether the military's first-ranking official can be completely free from legal responsibility for not taking any action in an emergency situation called civil war is still hanging in the air.