Falhon Cyril

I understand why people reached different conclusions at the beginning. But after following this case for months, my opinion isn't based on "he's my favourite actor." It's based on whether the timeline matches the accusations.

For example:

• Gold Medalist admitted they had an adult relationship (summer 2019 to autumn 2020). The dispute is whether it began years earlier.

• Kim Soo-hyun entered military service in October 2017 and served until July 2019. Any claim that they were secretly maintaining a long romantic relationship during that period has to fit around military service, leave records and both of their filming schedules.

• Kim Sae-ron was filming, studying and working throughout those years. Kim Soo-hyun also had documented schedules before enlistment, during military service and immediately after discharge. Simply saying "they dated since 2015" isn't enough—you have to show when they actually met, where, and how it fits around all of that.

• The 2024 photo proves they knew each other. It does not prove she was a minor when they dated.

• The letters, photos and videos prove they had a relationship at some point. They do not, by themselves, prove grooming or a criminal offence.

• Some of the most sensational pieces of evidence that circulated online later became the subject of forensic examinations and criminal investigations over alleged manipulation. That's another reason I stopped relying on viral clips and started following the legal process.

As for his behaviour in behind-the-scenes clips, people can certainly find it awkward or uncomfortable. But being awkward, overly affectionate or socially inappropriate is not the legal standard for grooming or a sexual offence. If we're going to call someone a criminal, the evidence has to prove the crime itself—not just make us uncomfortable.

That's why I follow the chronology instead of TikTok compilations. A timeline can't have favourites. Either the dates, locations and evidence fit together, or they don't.

There are videos, audio recordings, letters and photographs. The question has never been whether they exist—it's what they actually prove.

For example:

• Gold Medalist itself acknowledged they had an adult relationship, so nobody is denying they knew each other.

• The military letters have been publicly released, but whether they're romantic or simply friendly is exactly what's disputed.

• The alleged audio recordings and some KakaoTalk evidence have themselves become the subject of forensic examinations and legal proceedings, with prosecutors reportedly alleging that some materials were manipulated. Those claims are now part of ongoing criminal cases, so it's not accurate to present every piece of circulated media as established fact.

Calling someone a criminal requires evidence of a crime, not just evidence of a relationship. If reliable evidence ultimately proves he committed a crime, then he should face the legal consequences. If it doesn't, then the evidence should be judged on its merits—not on assumptions. That's why I'm following the investigation rather than social media.

You're pointing to real problems. South Korea has faced serious criticism for the handling of some sexual assault cases, and cases like Cho Doo-soon, Burning Sun, Choi Jong-hoon, and more recent sentencing debates have sparked public outrage. No one is denying that.

But none of those cases establish that Kim Soo-hyun committed a crime. They show that when there is evidence of a crime, people may disagree with the sentence or how the justice system handled it.

Those examples actually have something in common: investigators identified victims, suspects, evidence, and criminal charges. That's why there were trials and convictions.

In Kim Soo-hyun's case, we're still at a much earlier question: was there sufficient evidence that a crime occurred in the first place?

If the answer were simply "South Korea protects celebrities," then why are former presidents, ministers, prosecutors, police officers, chaebol executives, celebrities like Seungri and Jung Joon-young, and numerous powerful figures prosecuted every year? The justice system is imperfect, but it clearly does prosecute influential people when prosecutors believe they have enough evidence.

So citing unrelated cases doesn't prove Kim Soo-hyun is guilty. It only shows that South Korea, like many countries, has had controversial criminal cases. Guilt still has to be established with evidence specific to this case.

Calling it a "tragic coincidence" isn't living in a bubble. It's acknowledging that a coincidence, by itself, is not evidence. If the date alone proved guilt, then we'd have to ignore how investigations actually work.

History is full of tragic coincidences that led people to create stories around them:

• Princess Diana died on the anniversary of Mother Teresa's funeral week, leading to countless conspiracy theories. None of those dates proved murder.

• Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy have dozens of eerie date and number coincidences associated with their assassinations. They're fascinating, but historians don't treat coincidences as evidence.

• Titanic captain Edward Smith had survived previous maritime disasters before dying on the Titanic. People later saw it as a "sign," but it was simply coincidence.

• Many people who die by suicide choose birthdays, anniversaries or emotionally significant dates. Mental health professionals have documented what's known as the anniversary reaction, where important dates can intensify emotions. That still doesn't identify another person as the cause of the suicide.

Kim Sae Ron dying on Kim Soo Hyun's birthday is undeniably tragic. But if you want to accuse someone of causing a death, investigators need evidence connecting that person to the death—not just a date on the calendar. Otherwise we're replacing evidence with symbolism.

That's not really what your own comment history shows. Before 2025 you repeatedly described Kim Soo Hyun as "a phenomenal actor," said you liked him a lot, and your criticism was mainly about Queen of Tears—his acting, makeup and the chaebol storyline. It was only after the Kim Sae Ron controversy that you began describing him as selfish and saying you hoped he could never make a comeback.

You're entitled to change your opinion. But saying you had already formed that opinion "long before the 2025 scandal" doesn't seem consistent with what you actually wrote at the time. Even now you've said you "don't care about disputed allegations," which suggests your conclusion no longer depends on whether those allegations are ultimately proven or disproven. That's a personal choice, but it's different from saying the evidence led you there.

On that point, I actually agree with you. South Korea does have an extremely intense celebrity culture, and we've seen actors and idols receive massive hate over things that would seem trivial elsewhere. Park Shin Hye, IU, T-ara, Sulli, Goo Hara, Tablo, Lee Sun-kyun... the list is unfortunately long. The pressure from fans, anti-fans and the media can be brutal.

But that's exactly why I'm careful about this case. We've seen what happens when public opinion becomes the verdict before investigators finish their work. Kim Sae Ron deserved compassion instead of years of public humiliation after her DUI. Likewise, Kim Soo Hyun deserves to have allegations judged by evidence rather than by viral YouTube videos or social media.

We can acknowledge that Korean celebrity culture is often toxic without concluding that every accusation circulating online is therefore true. Those are two separate issues. My position has always been the same: follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

So your evidence is that she died on his birthday? That's not evidence of a crime. It's a tragic coincidence.

If Kim Soo Hyun were truly responsible, investigators would need evidence that links his actions to her death—not a date on the calendar. Correlation is not causation.

And remember, before he even had time to process her death, he became the target of worldwide allegations that he groomed a minor, drove her to suicide, and committed multiple crimes. Anyone in that situation would be fighting to defend themselves.

Tragedies deserve facts, not Sherlock Holmes analogies built on coincidences.

You're free to stop watching him, of course. But “what he said and did” is still very vague. He admitted to a short relationship with Kim Sae Ron when she was an adult; he did not admit to dating or grooming her as a minor. Those are not interchangeable. Choosing not to support him is personal, but presenting disputed allegations as something he confessed to is another matter.

I agree with the point, but I'd leave the insults aside. The legal proceedings against Kim Se-ui speak for themselves. Facts are much harder to dismiss than personal attacks.

So your argument is that Kim Soo Hyun somehow corrupted the entire Korean justice system? Former presidents with vastly more political power have been investigated, impeached, convicted and even imprisoned in South Korea. Yet we're supposed to believe a single actor successfully controlled the police, prosecutors, forensic experts and courts? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

You also keep calling him a groomer and bringing up Kim Yoo Jung. Working with a child actor is not evidence of grooming. If it were, hundreds of Korean actors would suddenly become suspects. That's not how evidence works. You're starting with the conclusion and then interpreting everything through that lens.

That's quite a claim. South Korea certainly has corruption problems, but it's also one of the few countries where former presidents, ministers, prosecutors and chaebol executives have actually been investigated, convicted and imprisoned. If Kim Soo Hyun really had enough power to buy the police, prosecutors, forensic experts and judges, he'd have to be more influential than several Korean presidents who couldn't even avoid prosecution. Does that honestly sound realistic for an actor?

Funny how, for the past 16 months, we were repeatedly told Kim Soo Hyun's career was "finished," that no brand would ever touch him again, and that the public had permanently abandoned him. Yet his first major fashion campaign after returning sold out, was restocked, and then sold out again. Companies don't restock products out of sympathy. They do it because people are buying them.

Whether you personally like Kim Soo Hyun or not is irrelevant. The market doesn't care about comment sections or hashtags. It cares about consumer demand. If customers weren't interested, BENCH wouldn't be celebrating repeated sell-outs. That's the difference between an online echo chamber and the real world.

That's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at a tragedy. Kim Sae Ron's life wasn't defined by one man. She had been struggling with the consequences of the DUI, financial difficulties, career setbacks, public criticism and reports of depression. Reducing everything to "Kim Soo Hyun smiled, therefore he didn't care" ignores everything else that was happening in her life.

And what exactly was Kim Soo Hyun supposed to do? Cry in front of every camera forever? Actors are expected to keep working. If you've watched Sh**ting Stars (2022), one of its storylines is literally about how the entertainment industry expects celebrities to smile, attend events and pretend everything is fine even after losing someone. The public only sees a few minutes on camera, not what happens in private.

People also forget the timeline. Before he even had time to grieve—or process the situation—he became the target of one of the biggest online hate campaigns in recent Korean entertainment. Instead of being allowed to mourn someone he had once cared about, he had to defend himself against accusations that he had groomed a child, driven her to suicide and committed crimes. Those allegations spread worldwide before any investigation had been completed.

Yes, he initially denied the relationship. He later admitted they had dated as adults and explained why he had denied it. But admitting an adult relationship is not admitting the grooming allegations. Those are two completely different things.

The saddest part is that Kim Sae Ron deserved compassion while she was alive. Instead, after her death, many people chose to turn her into a symbol in a narrative that still hasn't been supported by verified evidence. That doesn't honor her memory. It just creates another victim.

That's an odd argument. South Korea certainly has corruption issues, but it's also one of the few countries where former presidents have been investigated, prosecuted and even imprisoned. If Kim Soo Hyun were really wealthy and powerful enough to control the police, prosecutors, judges, forensic experts and media, he'd have to be more influential than several Korean presidents who couldn't even avoid prosecution themselves. Does that honestly sound realistic for an actor? It's far more reasonable to judge the evidence than to assume an entire justice system was bought because the outcome didn't match what some people wanted.

That's the problem with this discussion. The moment someone asks for evidence, they're called a "fan." I don't need Kim Soo Hyun to be innocent or guilty. I just need the evidence to support whichever conclusion people are claiming. That's how justice is supposed to work.

I understand your frustration, but I don't think personal insults help. The strongest argument is the evidence itself. If Kim Se-ui knowingly spread false information, the courts will deal with that. Facts are more convincing than insults.

I can't understand how anyone can call someone a pedophile without verified evidence. This isn't about defending a man. It's about defending the principle that accusations should be proven before they're treated as facts.

I had almost the exact same experience. After the first few episodes, I genuinely thought this could become one of my favorite BLs of the year. The investigation, the atmosphere, and the chemistry all worked so well together that it felt like the series knew exactly where it was going.

Then, somewhere around the middle, it seemed to lose confidence in its own story. Instead of letting the criminal plot naturally drive the ending, it shifted to a very familiar "I'll sacrifice our relationship without explaining anything" trope. Like you, I found it frustrating because these are adults. A single honest conversation would have solved most of the conflict.

What disappointed me the most wasn't that the story became more romantic—it was that the mystery, which had been the strongest part of the series, ended up feeling rushed and almost secondary. The father's sudden change of heart didn't feel earned either. If the writers had developed those emotional beats over several episodes instead of resolving them so quickly, I think the ending would have been much more satisfying.

It's a shame because the potential was definitely there. I still think the first half is excellent, which is probably why the second half felt even more disappointing.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I just wanted to step back from the emotions and look at the chronology, the evidence, and what was actually verifiable. Whatever anyone thinks of Kim Soo Hyun personally, I believe everyone deserves to be judged by facts rather than internet narratives. And like you, I sincerely hope Kim Sae Ron can finally rest in peace.

I could ask you the exact same question. You've spent days commenting on someone you clearly dislike, while I've spent time reading the case because I wanted to know whether the accusations actually held up. That's called being interested in a subject. If everyone stopped caring because "the celebrity doesn't know they exist," there would be no discussions, no reviews, no fan pages, and no criticism either. The difference is that I base my opinion on evidence, not headlines.