Floki

In the eyes of the law, evidence matters because the outcome is based on what can actually be proven. If something cannot be established, there are no legal consequences. That’s why the burden of proof exists.

Public opinion is different. Evidence can change reasonable people’s minds, but it won’t convince everyone. Some people will defend him regardless of what is proven, as it happens with many celebrities. Others may continue believing the allegations even if guilt is never established, arguing that his status/fame, money, or influence/power protected him.

That’s exactly why evidence matters! It helps separate genuine concerns from assumptions based only on someone’s reputation.

There is a difference between “there isn’t enough evidence to prove guilt” and “we know for a fact nothing happened.” The first is a reasonable position based on the available evidence. The second goes beyond what the public can actually verify. And this is something I have been trying to make people understand in this thread, as they claim something they cannot possibly know.

I agree this is a very serious accusation, which is why evidence should be examined carefully. If evidence disproves an allegation, that matters. But evidence can also have limits. A disputed timeline, changing statements, or unanswered questions do not prove guilt, but they can explain why some people still have doubts, do you not agree?

My point is not that doubt automatically means he did something wrong. Doubt alone cannot prove guilt after all. My point is simply that the public does NOT have enough information to confidently say either “he is guilty” or “he is definitely innocent.” More than that, he may never have enough information.

Regarding the 5-6 year claim, I’m not saying it is proven. It is disputed. The reason it matters is that, if it is authentic and refers to KSH, it conflicts with the agency’s timeline. If it is not authentic or not about him, then it loses that relevance. Now the main issue with their statement, is that it comes from a party that has already lied regarding the relationship. And based on the photo, there is more to this story than they shared.

So the issue is not “why provide evidence if people will still question it?” Evidence is exactly what should guide the conclusion. But until everything is independently verified, some uncertainty remains. That uncertainty is not the same as guilt! It is simply acknowledging that we do not have the full picture, it sucks but this is the only truth.

And while that may be uncomfortable to accept, I think it is the most intellectually fair position: recognizing that we do not have all the facts and cannot claim certainty either way.

I don't think either point proves he is guilty. My point is simply that they raise legitimate questions and shouldn't be ignored.

1. You're right that celebrities often deny dating rumors. By itself, that isn't evidence of wrongdoing. That being said, the agency later went from denying the relationship to acknowledging that it existed while presenting a different timeline. That affects credibility.

If someone is caught making a false or misleading statement, it's reasonable to view their later statements more cautiously, right? It doesn't mean everything they say is false, but it does mean their claims deserve more scrutiny. Personally I don't take agency statements at face value because they have a clear incentive to protect their client and manage public perception. So no, this doesn't prove he did anything illegal, it simply means their version of events should be treated with a degree of skepticism, something fans do not always do.

2. The reason people associate the letter with KSH is because KSR's family presented it as a letter addressed to him during a press conference specifically about their alleged relationship. If that attribution is incorrect, then the letter has very little value. If it is correct, it reflects her understanding of the relationship. Either way it still wouldn't prove the timeline she described.

That said, if the “5-6 years” statement was really about KSH, then it would obviously conflict with the agency’s timeline of them only dating from 2019. The 2024 photo also adds to the confusion. Even years after the alleged breakup, she chose to post a photo with him.

I’m not saying the letter or the photo proves guilt. I’m saying they are part of why we cannot be fully convinced by the agency’s version of events.

That said, what I personally believe is beside the point. My original argument wasn't that KSH is guilty. My point is simply that none of us actually know whether he's guilty or innocent. So saying with certainty that he's innocent is no more justified than saying with certainty that he's guilty.

There's a difference between saying, "This raises questions," and saying, "This proves he is guilty."

It is true that allegations often appear when someone reaches the peak of their career. Fame and power can make people bigger targets, and some accusations may be exaggerated or even fabricated...

However, the timing alone does not prove an allegation is false, right? There have also been cases where celebrities faced delayed accusations that were later supported by evidence. For example, actor Ji Soo admitted to past school bullying allegations in 2021, showing that some controversies that emerge after someone becomes famous can still be real.

The key question is not only “Why did this come out now?” but “What evidence supports or contradicts it?” Each case should be judged on the facts, not just the timing.

Let's clarify one thing: I am not claiming to know whether he is innocent or guilty, and neither can anyone outside the people directly involved. We can only assess the evidence and how reliable it is.

Using the wallet analogy: the wallet was either stolen or it wasn't. Evidence helps us determine what happened, but the absence of evidence does not automatically prove it never happened.

Legally, he is presumed innocent, but KSH is not currently facing a trial or prosecution over these allegations (maybe he never will). Presumption of innocence means that allegations must be proven before legal consequences can follow; it does not mean that “he is definitely innocent and that this is the only possible truth,” as some people claim.

If evidence was fabricated, it should be rejected, as simple as that. However, rejecting false evidence does not automatically prove the nothing happened; it only means that those specific pieces of evidence cannot be relied on.

Now since you are asking, to me the most questionable aspect of this case, is transparency. His agency initially denied the relationship, then later acknowledged it while presenting a different timeline, which caused people to question whether the full story was disclosed.

Other unresolved points include KSR’s alleged handwritten letter saying they were together “about five to six years” (not publicly proven fake, but also not independently authenticated), and her 2024 post years after the alleged breakup. The reason for that post is unknown, it could have been an attempt to reconnect, an emotional reaction, or something else.

Does the case look sus? Yes, there are aspects that raise questions, particularly around transparency and inconsistencies in the explanations.

Does that mean he is guilty? Definitely not.

Does that automatically mean he is innocent? Not necessarily either.

A situation can appear questionable without proving guilt, just as the lack of proven guilt does not automatically prove innocence.

That's kind of my point though. None of us actually knows what happened.

We have no way of knowing what role, if any, KSH played in her decision. Maybe none at all. Maybe it was significant. Maybe it was one factor among many. We simply don't know, and that's what investigations are for.

What I find weird is how everyone has already picked a side. The die-hard fans are convinced he's innocent no matter what comes out. The anti-fans are convinced he's guilty no matter what comes out. There's barely any room for, "We don't know yet."

At the end of the day, we're all just outsiders looking at bits and pieces of information. People are treating speculation like it's fact and then arguing with complete certainty over something none of us actually witnessed.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I think you're putting words in my mouth (not that I am surprised).

I haven't claimed that Kim Soo Hyun abused, coerced, bullied, manipulated, or encouraged anyone to end their life. I also haven't claimed he is legally or morally responsible for her death.

It's incorrect to say that another person's actions can never contribute to someone reaching that point. Mental health is complex, and suicide is often the result of many interacting factors, including trauma, relationships, social pressure, and any life circumstances. Acknowledging that isn't the same as assigning blame to any specific individual.

As for your warning about AI services detecting defamation, I'm not interested in defaming anyone. Discussing general principles about mental health and the complexity of suicide is not the same as making factual accusations against a particular person. I prefer to stick to what can actually be supported rather than speculate.

This is the point of the conversation: who can know with absolute certainty everything that happened? None of us can.

The law handles this through the presumption of innocence: a person cannot be treated as guilty unless guilt is proven. But not proving guilt is not the same as proving innocence, it simply means there was not enough evidence to establish guilt.

We can all form opinions based on the information available, but our beliefs do not change reality. Facts exist independently of what we want to believe.

If an investigation finds that certain claims or evidence were fabricated, that is extremely important and should be taken seriously. But it does not automatically mean that every aspect of the situation is fully understood or that we now know the complete truth. It means that those specific elements cannot be relied on to establish guilt.

A simple example: if someone steals a wallet, they either did it or they didn't. Evidence does not change what happened right? it only changes what we can prove. A video of it happening does not make someone guilty, it reveals something that was already true: We are able to prove that this someone did in fact steal it. The absence of a video does not automatically make someone innocent either, it only means there may not be enough proof. No video = we don't know, but it doesn't mean that no video = the guy who stole the wallet is innocent.

That's the distinction I'm trying to make: evidence doesn't change what actually happened. It only helps us understand what we can reasonably conclude.

It seems like a significant amount of effort is being spent with little expectation of meaningful results... People who engage in cyberbullying or cyberstalking often do not see their own actions as harmful; they may believe they are justified, defending a cause, or acting against someone they view as deserving of criticism. Here they believe they are fighting a predator that is defended by fanatics.

Because of this, broad warnings or indirect threats are unlikely to change their behavior if they do not see themselves as the target. Effective intervention usually requires directly addressing those involved, changing the incentives behind the behavior, or applying consequences that are clear, credible, and consistent.

Data also suggests there are no known consequences applied to foreigners in these cases. On top of that, the OP is repeatedly spamming the thread, making the discussion harder for everyone else. Rather than addressing specific individuals, the approach seems to be broadcasting threats in the hope they reach the right person.

That is why I suggested a different, more empathetic approach that may actually be more effective. Treating people as the enemy rarely changes behavior; it usually makes them defensive. Some will double down by defending someone they believe is innocent, while others will continue attacking someone they see as a predator who escaped consequences after a person died.

I did explain why I disagreed, several times! Not just from my own perspective, but by pointing out the legal distinction being overlooked.

My point has never been that Kim Soo Hyun is guilty or that the allegations are true (I've said that countless times). It's much simpler: not being found guilty does not automatically establish what actually happened. The law determines whether guilt has been proven, not whether every disputed fact is true or false. That's why it speaks of the presumption of innocence, not "proven innocence."

The same applies outside the courtroom. We shouldn't call someone guilty without evidence, but we also shouldn't claim certainty about events we can't possibly know. Saying "Kim Soo Hyun is innocent, and that's the only truth" goes beyond what anyone can actually know.

Legal conclusions and factual conclusions are different. A court answers whether there is enough evidence to prove guilt. It doesn't necessarily answer every factual question about what happened. Not every allegation becomes a criminal case! Some aren't criminal, some can't be prosecuted, and some never reach court for various reasons. So the absence of a prosecution tells us there was no legal finding, not necessarily everything that did or didn't happen.

You're free to believe he's innocent, but presenting that belief as an established fact is different.

It is not the only comment they have made in this style, and there have been multiple walls of text like this. Sure, it is structured, but it is also fairly generic and reads more like a list of potential punishments than a concrete policy or action. Punishments that, based on the available data, do not appear to have been applied to any foreigners to date, at least not in a way that has been communicated publicly.

Anyway, the point was not that it lacked structure. The point was that the comment was likely to be ignored by the very people it was aimed at. If your target audience does not care about the message, then the effort spent delivering it is ultimately wasted. Which is why I suggested a different approach.

You keep saying I've moved the goalposts, but I haven't. My position has remained the same from the beginning: the absence of a criminal case or conviction does not, by itself, establish what objectively happened.

What has actually changed is your position. You started by repeatedly stating, "Kim Soo Hyun is innocent. That is the only truth." When challenged, that became "I mean innocent in the sense of the presumption of innocence." Then it became "the presumption of innocence doesn't even apply because there was no criminal accusation." Now the argument is that he is absolutely innocent because there was no complaint.

Meanwhile, my point has not changed. I have never argued that he is guilty, that the allegations are true, or that he should be treated as guilty. You keep reframing my position into one I never held, then accusing me of manipulation, gaslighting, moving the goalposts, or trying to keep a smear alive. You are repeatedly responding to a position I did not take, this is called a straw man argument (look it up).

If we're going to accuse each other of changing positions, at least be accurate about whose position has actually evolved. If your next reply is just another version of the same arguments we've both already made, then I think we've reached the end of the discussion. Neither of us is going to get anything new out of repeating ourselves.

That’s not really true. A lot of the negative reviews came out before the controversy, so it’s not accurate to say the ratings are just because of the actors’ scandal. People have plenty of other reasons for not liking the show, and writing off all criticism as being about the controversy is just ignoring what viewers are actually saying.

I think part of the reason we keep going in circles is that we are mixing different concepts together.

You are treating legal status and factual conclusions as if they are the same thing. “Not charged,” “not convicted,” “presumed innocent,” and “factually innocent” are related, but they are not interchangeable. Changing the wording does not change that distinction.

My argument has never been that he is guilty or that allegations should automatically be believed. My point is simply that the absence of proven guilt does not automatically prove factual innocence.

The disagreement is not about whether someone should be treated as guilty without proof. It is about whether the lack of a finding of guilt allows us to claim we know the complete truth. Those are two different questions.

When this distinction is turned into accusations that I am manipulating people, creating doubt, or trying to keep a smear alive, the discussion moves away from the argument and toward assumptions about my intentions. That does not address the point itself.

Similarly, responding as if I argued that allegations are true or that he should be considered guilty creates a different argument from the one I actually made.

A stronger discussion focuses on whether the reasoning is correct, rather than attacking the person making the argument or assuming their motives.

You're misrepresenting what I said. Saying that a genuine, thoughtful message is more likely to make someone stop and reflect than a copied block of text isn't the same as saying it's guaranteed to work or that copied messages are always ineffective.

That's an observation about how people generally respond to authentic communication, not an attempt to "masquerade" an objection. If you disagree with the point, explain why. Accusing me of hidden motives doesn't address the argument itself.

You're describing what suicide can feel like to the person experiencing it. But I don't think it supports the claim that no one can ever bear responsibility.

A person's will to live or die isn't formed in isolation. Abuse, coercion, relentless bullying, manipulation, or being encouraged to end one's life can profoundly affect someone's mental state. That's why many legal systems recognize offenses such as assisting or encouraging suicide. These laws exist for a reason, regardless of anyone's personal beliefs. They demonstrate that another person's responsibility can be recognized both morally and legally. So the claim that "no one can ever be blamed" is factually incorrect.

So yes, the internal struggle is real, but that doesn't mean outside actions are irrelevant. Someone can make the final decision while others still bear moral, or even legal, responsibility for contributing to the circumstances that led to it.

You're mixing a few different things together. Whether K-netizens overreacted is a separate discussion from whether every allegation was "debunked." Some claims against Seo Ye Ji were unproven or disputed, but not all were debunked.

And the Kim Jung Hyun controversy wasn't just about her private relationship, it became a public issue because it allegedly affected a drama production and other people involved. Comparing it to another celebrity's controversy doesn't really answer whether the claims in her own case were true or false.

I wouldn't say all of it was debunked. Some claims were never substantiated and may have been exaggerated, but that's different from being debunked. The staff mistreatment and school bullying allegations, for example, remain unproven rather than definitively proven or disproven. On the other hand, the Kim Jung Hyun controversy wasn't really "debunked", the leaked messages were never shown to be fake, although there's debate about how much responsibility Seo Ye Ji should bear for his behavior. I think it's more accurate to evaluate each controversy separately instead of saying everything was either true or false.

From what I've seen, the reasons people give are related to the Kim Jung-hyun controversy, alleged staff mistreatment, school bullying allegations, questions about her education, her delayed apology, and a general reputation for having a difficult personality and being difficult to work with.

While self-exit is ultimately an individual's decision, it is too absolute to say that no one can ever be blamed. In some cases, sustained abuse, coercive control, bullying, exploitation, or deliberate encouragement can play a significant role in pushing a vulnerable person toward suicide.

The law in many countries recognizes this distinction by treating actions such as assisting or encouraging suicide, or severe harassment that foreseeably contributes to a death, as potentially criminal or civilly actionable. Responsibility is therefore not always all-or-nothing: a person may not be responsible for making the final decision, but they can still bear moral or legal responsibility for creating or worsening the conditions that led to it.

Not sure what you mean by my that. I believe I was transparent about what I meant, and the goal was simply to point out that what you tried might not be working the way you intended. In the end, I was trying to help you with whatever you're attempting to achieve.

Whether you choose to engage with them is entirely up to you. I'm just pointing out that they'll likely feel the same way about the comments you made. That's exactly how people stay stuck talking past each other instead of having productive conversations. Since you're doing the same thing yourself, I think you can probably see why it may not be as effective as you hope.