I surrendered to Goguryeo's Sui Dynasty twice.

 Goguryeo and Seokguram are representative objects mentioned when talking about the greatness and excellence of our history and culture. Seokguram Hermitage, which shows the proportionality of Goguryeo and Rak, expressed as losers in Northeast Asia and even losers in East Asia, is a symbol that proves the excellence of our people. However, are all of our thoughts on Goguryeo and Seokguram true? Shin Hyung-joon (38), who has been in charge of cultural properties at the Chosun Ilbo's Ministry of Culture for a long time and is currently a reporter at the Ministry of Social Affairs, argues that the general thoughts on Goguryeo and Seokguram are exaggerated differently from the facts in his recent publication. Goguryeo and Seokguram are not the only problems. The same is true of the Silla Park Je-sang, a symbol of loyalty. The author points out that he should know the dynamics between Silla and Japan in the early 5th century, when he had no choice but to send the Silla prince as a hostage. The title alone reveals the author's intention of the book composed of four articles, "Goguryo is a loser in Northeast Asia, or a loser in Liaodong," "Goguryo surrendered to the Suu Dynasty," "Why did Park Je-sang die in the country?" and "There is no mathematical proportionality in Seokguram." The author explains that Goguryeo researchers, including Seoul National University professor Roh Tae-don and Ulsan University professor Jeon Ho-tae, have argued, and that Goguryeo's theory of defeat in Northeast Asia, which is widely used in academia and the general public, has no reasonable basis. The author explains that the concept of Northeast Asia, created in the early 1930s by Professor Robert Kerrner of Berkeley State University in the U.S., includes three East Asian countries in Korea, China, and Japan, as well as Russia, which owns Maritime Province. It is also easy to think of Goguryeo's defeat of the Su Dynasty's Great Battle of Salsu, but it is pointed out that Goguryeo clearly surrendered to the Su Dynasty twice (1st and 4th invasions) and withdrew due to domestic rebellion during the third invasion of Yangje of the Su Dynasty. Basically, the author believes that it is unreasonable to compare Goguryeo with the Su Dynasty, which does not have the military ability to attack mainland China. The same is true of the mathematical proportionality of Seokguram Hermitage. After the claim of Japanese architect Miyoji Yoneda during the Japanese colonial period, prominent Korean art historians, including Kang Woo-bang, a professor at Ewha Womans University, and Yoo Hong-joon (currently head of the Cultural Heritage Administration), have argued that Seokguram was built according to proportionality. However, the author argues that as a result of a close review of the actual measurements of Seokguram Hermitage, no mathematical proportionality was found in Seokguram Hermitage, and that there was no concept of irrational numbers called the Unified Silla Period. The author said, "This exaggeration arose in the interpretation of ancient history due to the complex of Korean intellectuals in the second half of the 20th century who tried to hide the fact that modern times became possible through the colonial era or wanted to be compensated." Reporter Choi Youngchang's article was published on 2004/12/21. About Seokguram Hermitage... I think I learned in class that the pillars of the front room of Seokguram and the main Buddha form a triangle. But the strange thing about the picture in the textbook is that the vertex of the triangle is not located in the center of the main Buddha, but the main Buddha spans inside the triangle.