16106004

Completely agree!!!

I admit it has disturbed me a bit, especially beg of Ep 8. But I think that was some of the director’s intention. Some KDramas use over the top stories to communicate deeper truths. Agent Kim is one of them. I can’t take the drama itself too seriously but I can glean the underlying truths. Respectfully posted.

@Lee Jun Ho
Amazing! Respect to you for all your hard work putting this information together. Thank you for sharing it here in MDL. Your post should help answer questions for anybody who is or has honestly remained in doubt about KSH.

I was new to KDramas last year when I learned about KSH and this scandal (about 2 months into it by then). I have followed this case very closely ever since.

I have mentioned in other posts on other platforms where my doubts of KSH’s guilt stemmed from several issues, but primarily around the ability for such a relationship between two well known celebrities to exist, secretly, based on public information about their many respective projects, etc. It made no sense to me, given how celebrities lives are managed, for them to have had a relationship when she was 15-17, unnoticed by others in the profession. Surely someone with a conscience about KSR’s age would have confronted KSH and/or notified the authorities - especially her parents!

Another reason for my doubts of his guilt came from a clinical professional friend who confirmed my understanding that the serious labels ‘pedophile’ and ‘groomer’ cannot be determined without criminal and or psychological examination. To accuse someone of either of these without proof is a-kin to defamation - even for public figures. Those labels are so serious that, when ‘haters’ use them so callously in these posts about KSH, it is understandable (and I believe appropriate) that his supporters -who have kept themselves knowledgeable about this case- get inflamed and shoot posts back at them.

You have articulated what I had thought, and so much more, far better than I ever could have. Along with all the other supporters, I am pleased the allegations against KSH have been legally proven false and that the main accuser is behind bars awaiting his day in court.

I am not an anti-fan of Kim Sae Ron. She was valuable human being and a highly talented actress who left this world far too early. My support for KSH and his innocence in no way reflects on my absolute sorrow for her tragic passing. I know I am not alone in those feelings. May she rest in peace.

The first scene in Ep 8 - I was horrified. So Ji Sub is such a greate actor!! Throughout this entire drama, you can feel his emotions right along with him.

Do you think Gold teeth will take Hye-ri?

Your mission will be a success. I have seen them in Asian stores.

Interesting. Recall, (ep8) when she called to find out where he was, Kim told Sang-a not to say anything to General
Jang.

All points noted and appreciated.

It is unfortunate that the unintelligent, willfully ignorant posts may be considered mere opinion by investigators. But collection and investigation of these posts and their sources is needed to determine if they are mere opinion or a coordinated effort to, at the very least, manipulate public opinion against KSH.

It’s also a case study, for those who are actually studying cyber crimes, in how to harass a celebrity, and manipulate public opinion while staying
under the legal thresholds of
stalking and defamation.

Again, I appreciate your post.

Noted and appreciated.
I have, however, said my peace. Have a blessed day.

Your sarcasm blanked in false kindness is noted.

I am not some online justice police. I’m a responsible viewer who, along with others who are of the same mind, are boiling mad at repeated attacks on an innocent human being by the willfully ignorant.

I was not planning to engage specific haters beyond the education I already posted. It’s there now if they are willing to read so they can increase their understanding and heed that information as the kindest warning to stop and avoid potentially serious consequences that they will probably receive.

I appreciate your comments. I would take the helping someone understand approach if they were honestly confused about this issue regarding KSH. But these people are either willfully ignorant or they only wish to continue to spew lies. I wasn’t grandstanding as @daladajang called it.. I was backing up my warnings with specific details about what they continue to do - slander and defaming KSH and what the consequences could very well be for them. On another MDL thread, a fan of KSH said these hate comments are being collected as evidence of continued harassment against KSH. So all the hate comments aren’t going unnoticed.

I don’t know what you mean.

Really happy to hear this news! Trauma Code is a fun, action filled drama and Ji Ji Hoon and Choo Young Woo are great together.

Good idea! Thanks!!!

@daldajang Can a cyberstalker or cyber wrecker be held criminally liable if they are in one country and the victim is in South Korea? Short answer is Yes. But scroll up for the complete answer in my separate post. You may want to quit posting such trash.

Scroll down to read my posts on the definitions of Cyberstalker and Cyber Defamation (a/k/a Cyber Wrecker).
After you read them, you haters out there might want to quit posting now after you consider this:

Can a cyberstalker or cyber wrecker be held criminally liable if they are in one country and the victim is in South Korea?

Yes. In many cases they can—but it depends on jurisdiction, the country’s laws, and whether authorities cooperate across borders.

South Korea has become one of the more aggressive countries in prosecuting cyber harassment, cyber defamation, and online stalking. If the victim is in South Korea and the harmful conduct has effects there, Korean authorities may investigate even if the perpetrator is abroad.

Here are the main considerations:

* South Korean jurisdiction. Korean prosecutors may claim jurisdiction when conduct committed overseas causes harm within South Korea. This is especially true if the victim is a Korean citizen or resident and the online activity targets them in Korea.
* Type of offense. Depending on the conduct, charges could include:
* Cyberstalking under Korea’s Anti-Stalking Act.
* Criminal defamation or insult (South Korea criminalizes certain forms of defamation, including some true statements if made publicly without sufficient public interest).
* Violations of the Information and Communications Network Act.
* Extortion, blackmail, threats, or coercion.
* Distribution of fabricated or manipulated images or videos.
* Interference with business if coordinated online campaigns intentionally damage a person’s commercial activities.
* International cooperation. If the suspect is in another country, South Korea generally cannot simply arrest them there. Instead it may seek assistance through:
* Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs).
* Requests to foreign law enforcement.
* Interpol notices in appropriate cases.
* Extradition treaties, if the alleged offense qualifies and both countries’ laws permit extradition.

What if the person is in the United States?

If the cyberstalker is in the U.S. and the victim is in South Korea:

* Korean authorities can request assistance from U.S. authorities.
* U.S. investigators may pursue violations of U.S. federal or state law if the conduct also violates American law (such as interstate stalking, threats, or cyber harassment).
* Extradition is possible in some cases, but it is relatively uncommon for lower-level online harassment. It becomes more likely when the conduct involves serious crimes such as extortion, large-scale fraud, child exploitation, or organized criminal activity.

What if there are many people involved?

This is where “cyber wreckers” (사이버 렉카) become legally interesting.

If multiple individuals knowingly coordinate to:

* spread false information,
* harass a victim,
* encourage others to attack them,
* profit from defamatory content,
* or continue harassment after warnings,

they may each face liability. Prosecutors can also investigate whether they acted as part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise, depending on the evidence.

A real-world example

Recent high-profile Korean cases involving celebrities have shown that prosecutors are increasingly willing to investigate:

* YouTubers,
* anonymous social media users,
* foreign account holders,
* and people who monetized defamatory or stalking content.

Even when suspects are overseas, Korean investigators may seek subscriber records, IP information, financial records, and platform data through international legal channels.

So the short answer is: yes, a cyberstalker or cyber wrecker located in another country can potentially be criminally prosecuted for conduct targeting someone in South Korea. Whether prosecution actually occurs depends on the seriousness of the conduct, the evidence, the laws of both countries, and the willingness of authorities to cooperate internationally.

Are you saying because the haters are sitting in their US basements, slinging their digital mud, KSH has a higher burden of proof to prove his innocence?

Explain

Cyber defamation is defamation carried out through the internet or other electronic communications. It generally means publishing a false statement of fact about a person or organization online that harms their reputation.

Common examples include:

* Posting false accusations on social media.
* Publishing defamatory blog posts or online articles.
* Uploading videos that falsely accuse someone of criminal or unethical conduct.
* Posting knowingly false reviews or forum comments.
* Spreading fabricated screenshots, messages, or edited images as if they were genuine.

How it differs from cyberstalking

* Cyber defamation focuses on damaging a person’s reputation through false statements.
* Cyberstalking focuses on repeated harassment, intimidation, or monitoring of a person.

A person can commit one without the other, but in some cases the same conduct may involve both.

United States

Defamation law in the U.S. is primarily state law. To succeed in a civil defamation claim, a plaintiff generally must show:

* A false statement of fact (not merely an opinion).
* Publication of that statement to someone else.
* Fault by the speaker (the required level depends on whether the plaintiff is a private person or a public figure).
* Harm to the plaintiff’s reputation, unless the statement falls into a category where damages are presumed.

Truth is generally a complete defense, and opinions that cannot reasonably be understood as statements of fact are generally not defamatory.

South Korea

South Korea has both civil and criminal defamation laws. Notably:

* Online defamation can be prosecuted under the Information and Communications Network Act in certain circumstances.
* Unlike in the U.S., even true statements can sometimes lead to liability if they unlawfully damage another person’s reputation and are not found to serve the public interest. This is a distinctive feature of Korean law.

Example

* Likely not defamation: “I didn’t enjoy this actor’s performance.” (Opinion.)
* Potential cyber defamation: “This actor committed fraud,” when the speaker knows it is false or has no factual basis and presents it as fact.

Because cyber defamation laws differ significantly between countries—and even among U.S. states—the outcome of a particular case depends on the specific facts and the applicable law.

Cyberstalking is a pattern of using the internet or electronic communications to harass, intimidate, monitor, threaten, or repeatedly target another person in a way that causes fear or serious emotional distress.

It is more than simply criticizing someone online or posting negative comments. The behavior is typically repeated and unwanted.

Examples include:

* Repeatedly sending unwanted emails, texts, or direct messages.
* Following someone across multiple social media platforms after being blocked.
* Publishing private information (called doxxing).
* Encouraging others to harass or attack the person.
* Making threats of violence or harm.
* Creating fake accounts to impersonate or defame someone.
* Using GPS trackers, spyware, or other technology to monitor someone’s location or activities without permission.
* Posting repeated false accusations intended to intimidate or isolate the victim.

In the United States

* There is no single nationwide cyberstalking law, but federal law and many state laws prohibit cyberstalking and online harassment.
* Whether conduct is criminal depends on factors such as repeated behavior, intent, threats, and the harm caused.

In South Korea

South Korea has laws specifically addressing online stalking. Repeated online conduct—such as persistent unwanted messages, repeated publication of personal information, or coordinated online harassment—can be prosecuted under the country’s anti-stalking laws and, depending on the conduct, under other laws covering defamation, intimidation, or information and communications offenses.

Example

* Not cyberstalking: Someone posts one negative review of a business or one critical comment about a public figure.
* Potential cyberstalking: Someone creates multiple accounts to contact a person every day after being told to stop, posts their personal information, encourages others to harass them, and continues for weeks or months.

The key elements are usually:

1. Repeated conduct (not a one-time event).
2. Unwanted targeting of a specific person.
3. Intent to harass, intimidate, or monitor, or conduct that would reasonably cause fear or substantial emotional distress.

Cyberstalking can occur between strangers, acquaintances, former partners, coworkers, or even fans and public figures. The legal definition varies by jurisdiction, but these core concepts are common.