The Fatherland Innovation Party opened by expressing strong concerns about the Blue House's recent selection of lawyer Han Chan-sik, a former prosecutor, as senior secretary for civil affairs. The Innovation Party took issue with Chief Han's record of leading the investigation into the 'Ministry of Environment blacklist' targeting the Moon Jae-in administration when he was the head of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office, and pointed out that he is highly likely to advocate for the preservation of the prosecution's investigative authority and the revival of the principle of sentencing the former president. In addition, he raised questions about his human rights sensitivity, citing the past precedent of refusing to impose an emergency ban on former Vice Minister Kim Hak-eui from leaving the country. The Innovation Party is concerned that these appointments will have a negative impact on the second-stage prosecution reform discussions scheduled for the second half of the year, and is putting strong pressure on the Democratic Party to take the lead in ensuring complete separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers.

Internally, the Fatherland Innovation Party is struggling to find a political path after the election. Acting party leader Shin Jang-sik proposed the formation of a 'one-team platform for state administration' to the Democratic Party and appealed to the progressive camp to unite. He argued that the round table conference held during the last presidential election should be upgraded to a permanent consultative body to restart the engine of state administration. However, this is not an absorption through merger, but is interpreted as a will to seek cooperation with the Democratic Party on an independent line that is based on self-development but requires solidarity. Acting Director Shin defined the movement to reject the Fatherland Innovation Party or the frame of division within the Democratic Party as an "act of self-harm" and added a warning that he would respond resolutely to any attempt to undermine the unity of progressive forces.

On the other hand, former representative Cho Kuk increased the level of his offensive by pouring out more direct and harsh criticism towards the Democratic Party. He asked 10 open questions to the Democratic Party regarding its defeat in the Pyeongtaek re-election, criticizing the Democratic Party's decision to refuse unification and suspend merger during the election process, which ultimately led to the defeat of the progressive camp. In particular, despite the fact that many of the Democratic Party's supporters voted for Candidate Cho Kuk, the Democratic Party left a painful point that it was treating the Cho Kuk Innovation Party only as 'to fill the numbers for the standing committee vote.' This shows that distrust that the Democratic Party's arrogant election strategy is threatening the political position of the Fatherland Innovation Party has reached its peak.

At the basis of this conflict lies the desperation of the Fatherland Innovation Party to establish its own foundation for survival ahead of the 2028 general elections. Within the Innovation Party, the theory of 'absorption into the Democratic Party' is cautiously raising its head after former leader Cho Kuk's defeat in the election, but the party leadership is still trying to secure its own identity and prove its political usefulness in the name of 'prosecution reform'. The use of derogatory terms such as 'Munjoteollaeyu' by some supporters of the Democratic Party is a tragic phenomenon that symbolizes division within the pan-opposition group. The Innovation Party emphasizes that ending this regressive frame war and completing the contemporary task of prosecutorial reform is the only way for the progressive camp to regain the public's trust.