Legal Plot Holes

If you are going to make real legal issues a major part of any drama, do not sacrifice legal logic for kdrama gotcha-style plot points. The copyright case and the bully case were both illogical and incorrectly presented and concluded. Kang’s arguments, while delivered flawlessly, strained credibility. The prosecution was made to look like law-school students playing at being lawyers.

With the “Fiesta” painting case, the issue should have been framed as outright theft rather than copyright. The only way the hidden signature becomes relevant is if someone steals the original painting and attempts to pass it off as an original work. The case, as presented, had nothing to do with copyright, yet this distinction was glossed over, and no clear explanation was provided as to how the thief actually acquired the painting. While the emotional weight of the case was undeniable, its legal basis felt weak.

The bully case revealed an even greater disconnect between legal reasoning and dramatic intent. The assailant’s intent was completely divorced from the consequences of her actions, which is illogical. The show split the incident into two acts, but in reality, there was a single actor whose initial act can be argued as directly leading to the second (the victim being struck by a car - the same assailant's car).
The attempt to mitigate culpability by noting the victim’s frequent jaywalking was unconvincing and ludicrous, since it can also be convincingly argued that the direct cause of the victim’s stumbling into the road at that point in time, was the concussion sustained earlier—an injury that could arguably be classified as attempted murder. Moreover, it was puzzling that the prosecution never explored the possibility that the assailant deliberately circled back to finish what she started. This lack of prosecutorial thoroughness undermined the case’s credibility, despite Kang Hyo-min’s passionate appeal to broader social responsibility.

The delivery driver assault case illustrated how the drama can handle nuance more effectively. Here, the exploration of psychological factors and the nocebo effect was handled with care and depth (I particularly enjoyed this episode because it was the first time I came across the nocebo effect theory). It showed the series’ potential when it grounds its cases in logical, evidence-based argumentation while still incorporating emotional stakes. Unfortunately, this balance was not maintained consistently across all episodes.

Then there is the puzzling situation with Kwon. What’s going on with her and the baby-chick paralegal? It strained believability that she required the ML to point out she was being set up so blatantly. For a character positioned as sharp and seasoned, her naiveté in this subplot felt contrived.

Side note:
 It would be a shame to force a romance between the ML and FL.  While the age gap is not much of an issue realistically, ethically and professionally, it would undermine the credibility and professional integrity of the series.
One of the positive points about this drama was its underlying foundation as a solid legal drama (with emotional depth) because it avoids melodramatic diversions and instead keeps its focus on complex legal cases and professional growth. To completely abandon that strength for unnecessary romantic sentiment would weaken the drama considerably.

With the way some of these plot lines are going, one can only hope the series does not lose its momentum by prioritizing emotional manipulation over sound legal storytelling. When the show balances moral complexity, legal rigor, and emotional depth, it excels. When it drifts into illogical plot devices or forced sentiment, it risks undercutting its own strongest achievements.