The essence of this situation is that the cause of 'evidence preservation' and the realistic need of 'performance of work' are in direct conflict. Protesters define the shortage of ballots as a sign of election fraud and have a firm belief that ballot boxes and election-related items stored inside the stadium must be strictly guarded. On the other hand, executives and employees of nine sports organizations with offices in the stadium are complaining of a threat to their right to survive as they are unable to handle any public affairs entrusted by the state, such as preparing for international competitions, issuing performance certificates to athletes, and paying salaries. The police attempted to persuade the public through several warning broadcasts, informing them that physical obstruction of entry could constitute obstruction of business under criminal law, but the protesters are stubbornly resisting, considering this to be an illegal abuse of public power. In this way, the parallel lines between the two sides are narrowing the room for dialogue and raising the tension in the field to its peak.

As the conflict deepens, cracks are forming within the protesters. The protesters, who initially seemed united, are showing signs of internal division as the realistic view of allowing at least some people to enter the area to take out essential goods clashes with the hard-line view that the blockade cannot be lifted under any circumstances. In fact, an equal number of representatives from the police, sports organizations, and protesters were present and a mediation plan was proposed to take out only the goods without filming, but there were many cases where it was aborted due to strong opposition from some participants at the scene. This suggests that an assembly that started with voluntary citizen participation may lose control and degenerate into a dangerous situation in which the so-called 'power of the majority', in which a small number of hardliners influence overall decision-making, overwhelms individual judgment.

The police authorities did not simply dismiss this incident as a freedom of assembly issue, but began to apply strict standards for judicial action. Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner Park Jeong-bo defined the coercive body search and interrogation of youth handball players as a 'special coercion crime' and warned that it is a serious crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. In addition, he announced an active investigation based on evidence regarding assaults on journalists and insults to police officers, sending a strong message that simply sympathizing with illegal activities can lead to disgrace. This is a declaration of the will of public power to protect the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration guaranteed by the Constitution, but not to compromise on illegal acts that violate the rights of others and exercise power.

The views of the legal and political circles also reflect the seriousness of the situation. Experts point out that although the need to preserve evidence as advocated by the protesters is an issue that can already be fully demonstrated through legal procedures, it is difficult to avoid civil and criminal liability by blocking other people's work in the name of self-reliance. In particular, if sports organizations that have been identified as victims file civil lawsuits, there is a high possibility that criminal charges will be filed first to identify the perpetrators, which could result in a substantial economic and legal burden on protest participants. The process in which the political circles, including the People Power Party, attempted to mediate, but were thwarted by the strong opposition of one or two people, clearly shows how powerless the institutional window to resolve conflicts in our society is currently.