Evaluations on the 9·19 military agreement have shown great discord in our society. Some support it with much expectation on improvement of South-North relations and establishment of peace regime on the Korean peninsula. They think that North Korea now has shown sincerity on denuclearization as its leader promised to international society, and that, if well implemented, the agreement will contribute to the peace and stability on the peninsula. Others, however, with discredit of North Korean regime, raise concerns on the possibility of security instability that the agreement will bring about. Considering the past behaviors of North Korea, Kim Jong-en regime can use the agreement as a political tool, and, if it does not satisfy compensation, change its attitude for denuclearization at any time. Overall, the pros and cons on the military agreement have their own logic and reason, whose differences are not matter of right or wrong but that of viewpoints―optimism or prudence. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to be indulged in the wasteful debate on whether the military agreement is valid or not. Rather, at this point, it would be more important to contemplate how to implement the items that already consented between the South and the North, and search for future strategy preparing for additional consultations with the North afterwards. We should make every efforts of confidence building and arms control measures to shape current situation more favorable to the peace on the Korean peninsula. For that purpose, it is recommendable to approach the agreement with big picture and more balanced way. That is, we should avoid the fault to be buried in the tactical-operational level of logic, and instead take a comprehensive view in the political-strategic level. Also, we should seek strategic measures considering both dangers that the pros overlook and possibilities that the cons do not expect in the 9·19 military agreement.