Falhon Cyril

Exactly. After waiting that long, it no longer felt like a simple light comedy. The project was announced on November 26, 2024, and premiered on May 29, 2026, so viewers had roughly eighteen months for expectations to build. It felt like TayNew’s major return, so naturally we expected something memorable. Had it aired much sooner, I might have accepted it more easily for what it was, but after all that anticipation, “pleasant” simply wasn’t enough.

Insults are easy. Evidence is harder.

I agree with one thing you said: people do die because of public harassment, false accusations and trial by social media. That's exactly why I've spent months asking people to distinguish allegations from proven facts. If I were falsely accused of one of the worst crimes imaginable, I would hope people waited for verified evidence before destroying my reputation. That's the standard I'm asking for—not because it's Kim Soo Hyun, but because it should apply to everyone. If your principle only applies when the accused is someone you already sympathize with, then it's not really a principle.

This is exactly why I kept telling people to wait for the investigation instead of treating social media as a substitute for evidence.

Over the last few months, I didn't just read headlines. I reconstructed the chronology of both Kim Soo Hyun's and Kim Sae Ron's lives: filming schedules, military service, filming locations, public appearances, agency history, Gold Medalist's creation, career timelines, financial events—everything that could be independently verified. I wasn't trying to prove he was innocent. I wanted to know whether the grooming narrative actually fit the documented facts.

The more I researched, the less it made sense. The allegation required a secret relationship beginning when she was around 15 and continuing for years. Yet despite both being among the biggest names in the Korean entertainment industry, there wasn't a single independently verified photograph of them as a couple from that period, no verified witness confirming such a relationship, no Dispatch exposure, no paparazzi evidence, nothing contemporaneous. Dispatch has revealed countless celebrity relationships with far less public visibility, yet this supposed years-long relationship somehow left no verifiable trace.

The "evidence" people kept pointing to also became much weaker under scrutiny. The KakaoTalk messages were later challenged by investigators as manipulated. The audio recording used to claim sexual abuse at age 14 was considered unreliable and became part of the criminal investigation surrounding those who presented it. Even the military letters, originally presented as romantic proof, were later placed in a broader context by Kim Soo Hyun's legal team, who disclosed many similar letters from his military service and argued that the romantic correspondence was with another girlfriend from that period, not Kim Sae Ron.

That left one recurring argument, repeated here by people like @Hiyshida: "He knew her as a minor, therefore he groomed her." But knowing someone is not evidence of grooming. Child actors work with adult actors every day. They attend award ceremonies, film together, join the same agencies and maintain professional relationships. To conclude grooming, you need evidence of grooming—not simply evidence that two people knew each other.

Every time these inconsistencies were raised, the answer wasn't new evidence. It was that the police were corrupt, the prosecutors were corrupt, the media were corrupt, the courts would be corrupt, and anyone asking for verified evidence was "blind" or "delusional." But if every fact that contradicts your belief is automatically dismissed as part of a conspiracy, then you've stopped following evidence and started defending a conclusion.

Today's decision doesn't mean Kim Soo Hyun is perfect or that every detail of his private life is now known. It means that one of the most serious accusations imaginable—that he sexually abused a 14-year-old and had a relationship with Kim Sae Ron while she was a minor—was investigated and closed without prosecution after police concluded the allegations were unfounded.

That's why due process matters. Not because celebrities deserve special treatment, but because once millions decide someone is guilty before the evidence is tested, no legal decision can fully restore what was lost. Reputation, career, friendships and public trust can all be destroyed long before the truth is established. That's a lesson that goes far beyond Kim Soo Hyun.

Your entire argument is based on assumptions stacked on top of assumptions. You keep repeating "he groomed her" as if saying it often enough makes it true. It doesn't.

If this had really been a secret relationship starting when she was 15, where is the evidence? Not edited screenshots. Not YouTube videos. Actual evidence. Her family knew her. The Korean entertainment press follows top celebrities obsessively. Dispatch has exposed countless celebrity relationships. Paparazzi have caught idols meeting in secret. Fansites photograph every movement of A-list stars. Yet somehow, according to your theory, one of Korea's biggest actors managed to maintain a secret relationship with one of the country's most recognizable child actresses for years without a single verified photo, message, witness or report from that period? Does that honestly sound more logical than the possibility that the relationship began later, as Gold Medalist has consistently maintained?

You say the letter proves grooming. It doesn't. You say a late-night video proves grooming. It doesn't. You say knowing her as a minor proves grooming. It doesn't. Every step of your argument requires another assumption because the evidence itself doesn't get you there.

Then, whenever something contradicts your narrative, the answer is always the same: the police are corrupt, the prosecutors are corrupt, the media are corrupt, the courts are corrupt. If every piece of evidence you dislike becomes part of a conspiracy, then you've made your belief impossible to challenge. That's not following evidence. That's protecting a conclusion.

What I also find remarkable is the selective outrage. There are real convicted child predators and serial abusers walking free after serving their sentences. I don't see the same people spending months campaigning against them. Instead, they dedicate thousands of comments to a man who has never been criminally charged with these allegations and for whom the central claims remain disputed. Why? Because it's easier to attack a famous actor online than to confront actual offenders.

And don't tell me this is "just expressing an opinion." Calling someone a pedophile, a groomer or saying they caused someone's death without verified evidence isn't constructive criticism. It's a serious accusation. When thousands of people repeat it day after day despite the lack of proof, that's not discussion anymore. It's online bullying.

You call Kim Soo Hyun's supporters "delusional." I spent weeks reconstructing the timelines, filming schedules, military service, agency history, locations and chronology because I wanted to test whether the allegations actually made sense. I didn't start with a conclusion—I followed the evidence. You, on the other hand, keep repeating the same narrative without addressing any of the inconsistencies that have already been pointed out. If your position is so strong, answer those inconsistencies instead of repeating slogans. That's how evidence-based discussions work.

You have every right not to like him. None of us knows what happened privately between them.

What I struggle with is seeing people turn him into the sole reason for her death when the publicly available evidence paints a much more complex picture.

Kim Sae-ron had been carrying enormous pressure for years: she had supported her family from childhood, lost her career after the DUI, faced severe public hostility, experienced financial hardship, and people close to her later spoke about depression and previous suicide attempts that predated February 2025.

Could Kim Soo-hyun have helped her? Maybe. None of us can know what happened behind closed doors. But choosing not to help someone is not the same as causing their death.

I chose to defend the evidence rather than a narrative. Sometimes the truth is simply more complicated than finding one person to blame.

Dying on his birthday is undeniably tragic, but it doesn't tell us why she chose that day. If the reports from people close to her about previous suicide attempts are accurate, then she had already been struggling with severe mental health issues long before February 2025. That suggests an ongoing crisis rather than one created by a single event or a single person. It's possible she chose the date intentionally, it's possible it was simply when she had the opportunity, or for another reason entirely. Without a note explaining her decision, no one can honestly say. The date alone isn't evidence of responsibility.

You're free to find the relationship morally uncomfortable because of the age gap or the fact that they first met when she was younger. Many people do. But calling someone a pedophile has a specific meaning, and it isn't established simply because two adults later entered a relationship.

You also say, "it doesn't matter when it started," but legally and ethically, that's precisely the central question. If an inappropriate relationship began while she was a minor, that's very different from two adults beginning a relationship after years without significant contact. Those scenarios are not equivalent.

As for her passing, dying on someone's birthday is heartbreaking, but it is not evidence that person caused the death. Suicide is usually the result of multiple complex factors, and establishing legal or moral responsibility requires far more than temporal coincidence.

I'm not defending Kim Soo Hyun because I'm "parasocial." If verified evidence proves he committed wrongdoing, I'll accept it. I simply don't believe serious accusations should be treated as facts before the evidence supports them.

I agree with some of your points, but I think it's important to separate what has been established from what remains disputed.

The military letters themselves are not evidence of a romantic or sexual relationship. Their existence has never been the central issue; the question has always been what kind of relationship existed between them before they became a couple, if any. A letter, by itself, cannot answer that.

Regarding the photos, the chronology became far more complicated after the later investigations. Some of the digital material circulated publicly was reportedly found by investigators to have been AI-generated or manipulated, which is why parts of the evidence are now subject to criminal proceedings. That makes it difficult to rely on early internet narratives without re-examining them.

I also think it's important not to replace one certainty with another. Saying "he's definitely guilty" without sufficient evidence is a mistake, but saying "the truth is he had absolutely nothing to do with her death" also goes beyond what has been legally established. Her death likely resulted from multiple factors, and determining legal responsibility is ultimately for the courts, not for fans or anti-fans.

The strongest position, in my opinion, is simply to stick to verifiable facts. Criticize what can be proven, question what remains unclear, and avoid presenting assumptions—whether favorable or unfavorable—as established truth. That standard should apply equally to everyone.

I understand why the letters initially raised questions. However, the discussion has changed considerably since 2025. Some of the digital evidence that many people relied on—including material later alleged by investigators to have been AI-generated or manipulated—is now itself under criminal scrutiny. That makes it even more important to distinguish between verified facts and disputed evidence.

We know Kim Soo Hyun and Kim Sae Ron met in 2015. We know he sent her the Music Core photo afterward, and military letters have been acknowledged. What we do not know is whether those interactions establish an ongoing inappropriate relationship before she became an adult. The evidence that was supposed to fill that gap is precisely the evidence that has since been challenged.

Ethical questions about age gaps or workplace relationships are fair to discuss. But allegations such as grooming require reliable evidence, not assumptions built on material whose authenticity is itself being contested.

I think this is one of the more reasonable criticisms I've read because you distinguish between what is known and what remains uncertain. If Kim Soo Hyun only began dating Kim Sae Ron after she became an adult, then that is a legal adult relationship. Whether the age gap or the fact that they had met years earlier is "weird" is ultimately a matter of personal judgment, not proof of grooming. Grooming requires evidence of a pattern of manipulation or inappropriate conduct before adulthood, and that has been precisely the point under dispute.

Where I disagree is with statements like "he definitely watched her grow up" or "he most definitely gained access to her romantically." We simply don't know how much contact they had between the 2015 event and her joining Gold Medalist. Meeting a teenager once, taking a commemorative photo, or sending that photo afterward does not, by itself, establish an ongoing relationship. That's the gap the evidence has never conclusively filled.

I also agree that the financial dispute, the debt notice, and Gold Medalist's handling of the situation deserved serious scrutiny regardless of the dating allegations. Unfortunately, once disputed evidence and conflicting timelines entered the public discussion, it became much harder to separate verified facts from assumptions. That's why I've focused on chronology and evidence rather than choosing a side first. If stronger evidence emerges in either direction, I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.

It's easier to label people than to answer their arguments. Supporting due process and asking for verified evidence doesn't make someone a "pedo supporter." It means they believe accusations—especially serious ones—should be supported by evidence rather than assumptions. If new evidence emerges, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I'd rather discuss facts than insults.

There is a reason I spent months investigating this case instead of moving on after the first headlines. That reason has very little to do with Kim Soo Hyun himself.

Years before I had ever heard the names Kim Soo Hyun or Kim Sae Ron, I watched someone I knew lose everything because an accusation became more powerful than the investigation meant to examine it. He was a teacher. After repeatedly disciplining one of his students for serious behavioural problems, he was accused of raping her. Whether the accusation was true quickly became secondary. Within days, people no longer asked whether he had done it. Instead, they began asking how they had failed to notice "the signs." I watched something deeply unsettling happen. People didn't simply judge the accusation. They rewrote his entire life around it. He wasn't married? That suddenly became suspicious. He cared deeply about his students? That became evidence of grooming. He was quiet? He must have been hiding something. He was kind? Then his kindness had obviously been manipulation all along. Every memory people had of him changed without a single new fact appearing. Only the accusation had changed.

The investigation eventually failed to establish his guilt. Legally, that should have mattered. Socially, it barely changed anything. He lost his career. Friends disappeared. Members of his own family rejected him. Unlike most people around him, I already knew he was gay. We had spent time together in London's gay community, and many people there knew as well. The secret was never his sexuality—it was that his family came from an extremely conservative background and had publicly campaigned against gay rights. After his suicide, I found years of letters, photographs and videos documenting long-term relationships with other men. I gave everything to the investigators because I believed the truth still mattered. It didn't. By then, the public had already decided who he was. Even his own family found it easier to let people believe he had died as a rapist than acknowledge that he had lived as a gay man.

That experience fundamentally changed the way I think about public accusations. It wasn't simply the possibility that innocent people can be accused—that has always happened throughout history. What disturbed me most was watching how quickly human beings reconstruct someone's entire past once they believe they know the ending of the story. Psychologists have studied this phenomenon for decades. They call it hindsight bias. Once we know the outcome, our brains unconsciously convince us that the warning signs had always been obvious. Confirmation bias then reinforces that process, encouraging us to notice every detail supporting our belief while quietly ignoring those that complicate it. Neither mechanism requires dishonesty. They are simply part of how the human brain works.

When the Kim Soo Hyun controversy began in March 2025, I recognised those same psychological mechanisms almost immediately. Like everyone else, I felt sympathy for Kim Sae Ron. A young actress had died, her family was grieving publicly, and new allegations appeared almost daily. Military letters, screenshots, KakaoTalk conversations, photographs, YouTube broadcasts and anonymous testimonies flooded social media. Like millions of others, I could easily have accepted the first coherent narrative presented to me. Instead, I remembered the promise I had made to myself after my friend's death: never begin with a verdict and work backwards. If I was going to form an opinion, it had to be based on chronology rather than emotion, evidence rather than algorithms, and understanding rather than outrage.

What I expected to be a few days of reading gradually became months of research. I reconstructed timelines. I compared Korean reporting with international reporting. I rewatched interviews that had been recorded more than a decade earlier. I examined legal documents, translated Korean articles, revisited Real, followed Reuters, Yonhap, SBS Entertainment News, The Korea Times, court developments and later investigations long after most people had stopped paying attention. Every time I thought I understood the story, another article complicated it. Every new piece of evidence forced me to ask the same question again: does this actually change what I know, or only what I think it means? That distinction eventually became the foundation of this entire investigation.

At first, I believed I was trying to answer a simple question: Was Kim Soo Hyun guilty or innocent? Months later, I realised I had been asking the wrong question. The real question was whether I was willing to let evidence change my mind, even when it challenged my own assumptions. That is a much harder question because it requires accepting uncertainty, and uncertainty is something the internet rarely tolerates.

This is therefore not a defence of Kim Soo Hyun, nor an attack on Kim Sae Ron or her family. It is an attempt to understand how two human beings became trapped inside one of the most polarising public scandals in recent Korean entertainment, and how psychology, chronology and evidence together can tell a far more complex story than the one most of us were first presented with.

Once I realised how easily hindsight bias can reshape our memories, I changed my method entirely. Instead of beginning with the accusations and looking backwards for supporting evidence, I forced myself to reconstruct the chronology first. Every interview, every article, every photograph and every legal document had to be placed in its original context before asking what it meant. That may sound obvious, but it is surprisingly rare during public scandals. Most discussions begin with a conclusion and then search for details that reinforce it. I wanted to do the opposite. Before deciding who was right or wrong, I wanted to understand what could actually be established.

One of the first things I discovered was that the public debate often blurred the line between facts, allegations and assumptions. There are facts that are no longer seriously disputed. Kim Soo Hyun and Kim Sae Ron knew each other before they eventually became a couple. Kim Soo Hyun himself publicly acknowledged that they had been in a romantic relationship as adults. Kim Sae Ron died tragically in February 2025. Those facts form the foundation of the chronology. Everything else depends on determining when events occurred, how they occurred and what evidence actually supports each claim.

That distinction matters because the central question has never been whether they dated. Kim Soo Hyun admitted that they did. The real question is whether that relationship began while Kim Sae Ron was still a minor or only after she had reached adulthood. Once I understood that, I realised much of the online debate had shifted without people noticing. Early discussions often treated any evidence that the two knew each other before adulthood as though it automatically proved a romantic relationship. But knowing someone and dating someone are not the same thing. Establishing one does not automatically establish the other.

The chronology begins with public interactions that nobody disputes. They met while Kim Sae Ron was still a young actress. One of the most discussed moments is a photograph taken backstage at Music Core in 2015. Years later, a KakaoTalk message showed Kim Soo Hyun sending her that commemorative photograph. These elements demonstrate that the two knew each other and had contact. What they do not demonstrate is the nature, frequency or evolution of that contact during the following years. This is the period where the chronology becomes incomplete, and incomplete chronologies are precisely where assumptions tend to replace evidence. Yet gaps in chronology should remain gaps until evidence fills them.

Many people argue that because they met in 2015, a romantic relationship must have begun shortly afterwards. Others argue that there is no documented evidence supporting continuous contact throughout those intervening years. At present, neither position has been conclusively established through publicly available evidence. That is an uncomfortable conclusion because people naturally dislike uncertainty. Yet uncertainty is sometimes the most honest answer an investigation can produce. A gap in evidence should remain a gap until new evidence fills it. It should not automatically be filled with the explanation we personally find most convincing.

The military letters became another example of how chronology can be overwhelmed by interpretation. Once those letters became public, many readers immediately viewed them as confirmation of grooming. When I read them carefully, however, I noticed something different. They certainly confirmed that Kim Soo Hyun and Kim Sae Ron were in contact while he was completing his military service. They reflected familiarity, warmth and affection. But they did not contain explicit romantic language, nor did they establish when a romantic relationship actually began. Their existence is an important piece of the chronology, but by themselves they cannot answer the central question that the controversy revolves around.

One of the most frequently cited examples is a 2013 interview in which Kim Soo Hyun joked that he wanted to marry at forty-one and imagined his future wife being twenty-one. A twenty-year age gap naturally raises ethical questions. However, I also noticed something else. The interpretation of that interview changed dramatically after the allegations emerged. Before 2025, it was generally remembered as an awkward celebrity joke. Afterwards, it became widely presented as though it had always been an open declaration of attraction toward minors. That transformation illustrates hindsight bias perfectly. The interview itself never changed. Our interpretation of it did.

Psychology offers several possible explanations without claiming certainty. Children often absorb, reject or imitate relationship models they observe while growing up. Kim Soo Hyun's father eventually formed another family with a significantly younger actress. Could that family dynamic have unconsciously influenced the way Kim Soo Hyun spoke about relationships years later? Possibly. Could it simply have been immature humour during a promotional interview? Also possible. Could it genuinely have reflected his personal preferences at that time? That is possible as well. The important point is that several explanations remain psychologically plausible. None has been proven. Therefore, treating that single interview as definitive evidence of criminal intent asks more of the evidence than it can reasonably provide.

Real became another example of how hindsight bias can reshape earlier events. During the controversy, many people began treating Real as though it had always been evidence of Kim Soo Hyun's morality rather than simply a controversial film. That struck me as another example of our tendency to reinterpret earlier events through later accusations. A poor professional decision or participation in a controversial project may deserve criticism, but criticism alone does not automatically establish a pattern of criminal behaviour. Chronology reminds us that not every controversy points toward the same conclusion.

Another event frequently discussed is the certified debt notice sent to Kim Sae Ron after the financial losses following her DUI. Public reaction was immediate. Many people interpreted the document as evidence that Kim Soo Hyun or Gold Medalist had deliberately abandoned someone in emotional distress. Yet when I looked into Korean contract law and the reporting surrounding the case, I discovered that the legal meaning of such notices is more complicated. A certified demand letter is often required to preserve legal rights or accounting obligations, particularly when companies are responsible to shareholders, insurers or auditors. Whether the notice was legally necessary, emotionally insensitive or both remains open to debate. What cannot honestly be concluded from the document alone is the emotional intention behind sending it. A legal document tells us what someone did. It does not automatically tell us why they did it.

As I reconstructed the timeline, another pattern emerged. Many discussions treated every event as though it naturally supported the same narrative, yet the chronology itself resisted that simplicity. Some events deserved criticism. Others remained uncertain. Others still turned out to have far weaker evidential value than I initially believed. Instead of reinforcing a single conclusion, the timeline repeatedly reminded me how dangerous it is to interpret isolated moments without understanding what came before and after them.

By this point, I realised that chronology does something remarkably important. It slows us down. It forces us to separate evidence from interpretation before deciding what anything means. Once I adopted that discipline, I found myself becoming less certain, not more. Surprisingly, that growing uncertainty did not feel like failure. It felt like the first stage of an honest investigation. Because only after reconstructing what happened could I begin asking the far more difficult question: why did these two people behave the way they did?

As I reconstructed the chronology, another question naturally emerged. If chronology tells us what happened, psychology may help us understand why people behave the way they do. Psychology cannot determine guilt or innocence. It cannot tell us whether someone committed a crime. That is the role of evidence and, ultimately, the courts. What psychology can do is remind us that behaviour rarely appears in isolation. Every human being is shaped by genetics, personality, family dynamics, education, trauma, relationships, culture and countless experiences that outsiders will never fully know. If we ignore those influences entirely, we risk reducing complex people to simple stereotypes.

One thing that increasingly troubled me throughout this case was how differently psychology was applied to the two central figures. Kim Sae Ron's emotional struggles were widely discussed, often with compassion. Her childhood as a successful child actress, the pressure of supporting her family, the devastating consequences of the 2022 DUI, her financial difficulties and her declining mental health were all presented as important context for understanding her final years. I agreed with that approach. No tragedy should ever be examined without understanding the person who lived through it. Yet whenever the discussion shifted toward Kim Soo Hyun's own background, many people suddenly argued that psychology was irrelevant or that any attempt to understand him amounted to making excuses. That inconsistency stayed with me. If understanding one person's past is considered compassionate, understanding another person's past should not automatically become suspicious.

The more I researched Kim Sae Ron's life, the harder it became to reduce her death to a single event or a single relationship. The chronology suggests a far more complicated picture. Court records reported by SBS Entertainment News showed that she was connected to substantial family financial problems, including claims listed during her father's bankruptcy proceedings. Reuters and the Associated Press documented the extraordinary public scrutiny she faced after the DUI, while Korean media described how difficult it had become for her to return to acting despite repeated attempts. According to statements from family members, a former boyfriend and people presented as being close to her, she had also experienced significant psychological distress long before February 2025. Some even claimed she had attempted suicide on multiple occasions before her death. Those specific accounts have not all been independently verified through official medical records, so they should remain testimony rather than established fact. Nevertheless, taken together, they suggest a young woman carrying burdens that had accumulated over several years rather than several weeks.

This distinction matters because it changes the question entirely. Instead of asking whether one event "caused" her death, we should ask what combination of factors may have contributed to an already fragile situation. Mental health professionals have long explained that suicide is rarely attributable to a single cause. Depression, financial pressure, social isolation, public humiliation, relationship difficulties, family conflict and previous suicidal behaviour often interact rather than operate independently. No responsible psychologist would look at such a complex situation and confidently identify only one cause. Yet that is precisely what much of the public conversation attempted to do.

The reports concerning her previous suicide attempts particularly changed the way I viewed the chronology. If those accounts are accurate, then Kim Sae Ron's psychological crisis did not begin with her final dispute involving Gold Medalist or with media attention in early 2025. It had already existed. That does not diminish the emotional impact of later events. A painful breakup, legal conflict or financial demand can absolutely worsen an existing depression. But worsening an existing condition is very different from creating it. Understanding that distinction does not protect anyone from criticism. It simply reflects what psychology has consistently shown about cumulative stress and mental illness.

As I was learning more about Kim Sae Ron, I also returned to Kim Soo Hyun's own history—not to excuse his decisions, but because I wanted to understand the other half of the relationship with the same intellectual honesty. Long before this controversy, Kim Soo Hyun had spoken publicly about his childhood. His parents separated when he was young. He was raised almost entirely by his mother after his father left and later formed another family. He described himself as an extremely shy child who struggled socially, to the point that his mother encouraged him to attend acting classes simply to help him communicate with other people. Years later, despite the emotional distance between them, Korean reporting indicated that he helped support his father's second family financially. None of these facts prove anything about his later relationships. But they do describe a childhood marked by separation, emotional reserve and complicated family dynamics.

Psychological research on attachment theory does not allow us to diagnose public figures from afar, nor should it. What it does tell us is that early relationships often influence how people manage intimacy, conflict and emotional vulnerability later in life. Some people respond to insecurity by clinging more tightly to relationships. Others cope by creating emotional distance whenever situations become overwhelming. These are statistical patterns, not predictions. They explain possibilities rather than certainties. When I compared that literature with Kim Soo Hyun's public behaviour over the past fifteen years, I noticed something that I had not considered before the controversy. Throughout his career, he has remained remarkably private, rarely discussed romantic relationships, consistently delegated public crises to his agency or legal representatives and generally avoided emotional public responses. Those observations do not prove an avoidant attachment style. They did, however, force me to reconsider whether I had mistaken emotional distance for emotional indifference. At the very least, they are consistent with one possible psychological explanation.

That possibility also made me reconsider the end of his relationship with Kim Sae Ron. If the reports describing her worsening mental health are broadly accurate, another explanation becomes conceivable. Someone who naturally copes with emotional conflict through withdrawal may feel completely overwhelmed by a partner experiencing severe depression or repeated crises. Such a person may distance themselves not because they lack empathy, but because they genuinely do not know how to respond. I cannot say that this is what happened. No one outside the relationship can. But recognising that it is psychologically plausible changed the way I interpreted later events. Instead of seeing only indifference, I began recognising that several explanations remained compatible with the evidence.

This is precisely why I believe psychology matters. Not because it answers legal questions, but because it reminds us that behaviour is almost never explained by a single motive. Two people can love each other and still hurt each other. Someone can make poor decisions without being malicious. Someone can withdraw because they are overwhelmed rather than because they are cruel. Another person can desperately seek reassurance not because they wish to manipulate others, but because they are terrified of abandonment. None of these possibilities erase responsibility. They simply remind us that human relationships are rarely as straightforward as internet narratives suggest.

By this point, I realised I was no longer investigating two public figures. I was investigating two human beings whose lives had been shaped by very different histories, carrying very different wounds and responding to stress in very different ways. Whether those psychological interpretations ultimately prove correct is less important than the lesson they taught me: understanding behaviour requires more than collecting evidence. It also requires remembering that every piece of evidence belongs to a person, and every person is far more complicated than the headlines that eventually define them.

By the time I reached 2026, I realised something remarkable had happened. The controversy was no longer only about whether Kim Soo Hyun had behaved appropriately. It had become a case about the evidence itself. That distinction is crucial because much of the public discussion remains frozen in March 2025, while the legal proceedings continued to evolve long afterwards. People kept repeating the same screenshots, recordings and headlines, often unaware that investigators had begun examining whether some of those materials were authentic in the first place.

One of the biggest lessons I learned during this period was that evidence is not simply something we collect. It is something we must authenticate. For decades, photographs, handwritten letters, recordings and screenshots have carried an implicit assumption of authenticity. Artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed that. Today, images can be generated, voices cloned and conversations manipulated with astonishing realism. The Kim Soo Hyun controversy became one of the first major celebrity cases where that technological reality collided directly with public opinion. Suddenly, investigators were not only asking what the evidence showed. They were asking whether the evidence itself could be trusted.

As the legal proceedings progressed, Korean investigators announced that some digital material circulating publicly had allegedly been fabricated or manipulated using artificial intelligence. Reports by Reuters and The Korea Times explained that these findings contributed to criminal proceedings involving Kim Se-ui, the operator of HoverLab (better known internationally as Garo Sero Institute), whose broadcasts had played a central role in shaping public opinion during the early months of the controversy. Whether those proceedings ultimately end in conviction or acquittal is a matter for the courts. What matters for my own reasoning is that the investigation itself recognised something many people had ignored from the beginning: digital evidence should never be accepted simply because it confirms the story we already believe.

This also forced me to look more carefully at HoverLab itself. Throughout 2025, the channel became one of the primary sources through which the public received new allegations. Many viewers gradually began treating its broadcasts almost as official investigations. One of the most delicate aspects of the controversy was the relationship between HoverLab and Kim Sae Ron's family. Throughout 2025, members of Kim Sae Ron's family publicly appeared alongside Kim Se-ui during several press conferences and broadcasts, sharing documents, photographs and personal accounts. That collaboration undoubtedly influenced public opinion. At the same time, it is important to distinguish between cooperation and independent verification. A family sincerely sharing what they believe to be true is not the same thing as every document being authentic or every interpretation being correct. Likewise, the existence of disputed evidence does not automatically invalidate every concern raised by the family. Both possibilities can coexist, and that is precisely why independent investigation remains essential.

The more I examined the chronology of those legal developments, the more I noticed another pattern. Public opinion rarely updates itself when new information appears. Once people commit emotionally to a narrative, later developments often receive far less attention than the original accusation. Millions of people watched the first broadcasts. Far fewer followed the subsequent court proceedings. Even fewer read Reuters, SBS, Yonhap or The Korea Times months later when new facts complicated the earlier story. That imbalance creates an unfortunate reality: first impressions often become permanent, while corrections struggle to reach the same audience.

Perhaps the greatest lesson this investigation taught me is that chronology has a remarkable ability to challenge certainty. Every time I thought I had reached a firm conclusion, another article, another legal development or another verified document forced me to reconsider. Sometimes it strengthened my previous understanding. Sometimes it weakened it. That is exactly how honest investigation should work. Research is not supposed to confirm what we already believe. It is supposed to test whether our beliefs survive contact with new evidence.

Looking back, I realise that the controversy gradually stopped being about Kim Soo Hyun alone. It became an illustration of something much larger. We are entering an era where evidence itself can be manufactured, where algorithms reward outrage more than accuracy, where first impressions travel faster than corrections, and where millions of people form moral judgments long before investigators complete their work. That reality should concern everyone, regardless of which side they support in this particular case.

By this stage of my research, I realised I had never really been defending an actor.I realised I was defending a method. Chronology before interpretation. Authentication before certainty. Psychology before caricature. Evidence before conclusions. Those principles matter far beyond this controversy because they will shape how we respond to every public accusation that follows.

Ironically, the more I researched Kim Soo Hyun, the less interested I became in defending him. Instead, I became increasingly interested in understanding him. Those are not the same thing. Defending someone often means explaining away uncomfortable facts. Understanding someone means accepting those uncomfortable facts while also recognising that every human being is shaped by a lifetime of experiences invisible to the public. The same applies to Kim Sae Ron. I do not want people to remember her only as an actress, a victim or a collection of headlines. I want people to remember that she was a human being carrying burdens that most of us will never fully understand. If psychology has taught me anything, it is that people are rarely defined by a single moment. They are the sum of thousands of experiences, many of which remain hidden from everyone except themselves.

Perhaps the greatest lesson this investigation taught me is that truth is rarely found at the extremes. It usually exists somewhere between certainty and doubt. The internet often demands immediate moral clarity because uncertainty feels uncomfortable. Yet uncertainty is not weakness. In many investigations, it is the most intellectually honest position available until better evidence appears. I would rather admit that I do not yet know something than pretend certainty where none exists. The more I researched, the more often I found myself changing my own mind. Some evidence that initially appeared convincing became weaker once placed in its proper chronology. Other details I had dismissed too quickly became more significant after additional reporting emerged. Rather than undermining my confidence, those changes reassured me that I was following the evidence instead of asking the evidence to follow me.

Justice exists to determine legal responsibility. Psychology exists to help us understand the people behind the actions. One cannot replace the other. We need both. Evidence tells us what happened. Psychology reminds us that human beings are more than the worst thing they have done—or the worst thing they have been accused of doing. If we abandon evidence, we risk replacing truth with emotion. If we abandon psychology, we risk forgetting that every headline is ultimately about real people whose lives were shaped by histories that strangers will never completely know.

That is why I kept researching after everyone else seemed to have made up their minds. Not because I wanted to save Kim Soo Hyun. Not because I wanted to discredit Kim Sae Ron. I continued because I believe the truth deserves patience, chronology deserves respect, psychology deserves a place alongside evidence, and every human being deserves to be understood before they are judged.

That's your right. You don't have to like Kim Soo Hyun, and you don't have to forgive him. But saying "his mask slipped" is still an interpretation, not evidence. My point has never been that he's perfect. It's that timelines, verified facts and assumptions shouldn't be treated as the same thing. If the evidence eventually proves he committed a crime, I'll accept it. If it doesn't, I won't fill the gaps with intuition just because it feels convincing. That's the only "narrative" I'm defending.

You're right about one thing: I wasn't there, neither were you. That's precisely why I don't treat any single source as the truth—not YouTube, not Reuters, not Dispatch, not Gold Medalist, not Garo Sero, not Korean media, not international media. The difference isn't that I trust different sources. The difference is how I use them.

When Reuters reports something, I don't believe it because it's Reuters. I ask: What is Reuters actually reporting? For example, Reuters doesn't say Kim Soo Hyun is innocent. Reuters reports what Gold Medalist says, what Kim Sae Ron's family says, what lawyers say, and what investigators publicly announce. Those are different things.

The same applies to Korean media. I don't assume Korean newspapers are always right. I compare several outlets, look for the original statements, check dates, and reconstruct the timeline. Sometimes the timeline itself disproves a claim.

For example, people often say Kim Sae Ron joined Gold Medalist because of Kim Soo Hyun. The verified timeline shows her YG Entertainment contract expired in November 2019, Gold Medalist was announced in January 2020, and Kim Soo Hyun, Seo Yea Ji and Kim Sae Ron all signed together.

https://www.hellokpop.com/news/goldmedalist-kim-soo-hyun-seo-ye-ji-kim-sae-ron/

Does that prove Kim Soo Hyun had nothing to do with her joining? No. Does it prove she joined because of him? Also no. The timeline simply doesn't allow that conclusion to be stated as a fact. The same happened when I researched before 2025. People told me, "Keep digging." I did. I verified the 2013 marriage comment instead of relying on social media summaries.

https://www.soompi.com/article/495166wpp/kim-soo-hyun-wants-to-marry-a-woman-20-years-younger

I checked the interviews surrounding Moon Embracing the Sun, not just edited clips. I rewatched Real instead of relying on what people said about it. Some things made me more critical of Kim Soo Hyun. Some things made me less critical. That's what research is supposed to do.

If every piece of information only reinforces the opinion you already had, you're no longer testing your conclusion—you're selecting evidence that confirms it. You also wrote that Kim Soo Hyun is powerful enough to manipulate forensic evidence. Maybe. But that's a possibility, not evidence. If every report supporting him is automatically dismissed as corruption, while every report against him is automatically accepted as truth, then no amount of evidence could ever change your mind.

That isn't an investigation anymore. It's a conclusion looking for support.

If tomorrow verified evidence proves he committed a crime, I will accept it. If tomorrow verified evidence disproves an allegation, I will accept that too. My opinion follows the evidence. It doesn't ask the evidence to follow my opinion.

I appreciate the conversation, and I probably will keep researching. But perhaps not in the way you mean.

You told me to dig long before 2025. I did.

I went back to his early interviews, rewatched Real, revisited Moon Embracing the Sun, checked contemporaneous articles instead of recent compilations, compared translations with the original reporting, and reconstructed the chronology rather than reading isolated incidents.

For example:

The famous marriage comment is real. In 2013, Kim Soo Hyun said that because his marriage plans had been delayed, he imagined marrying at 41 and meeting or marrying a 21-year-old woman. That remark deserves criticism and many people found it inappropriate even then.

https://www.soompi.com/article/495166wpp/kim-soo-hyun-wants-to-marry-a-woman-20-years-younger

I also checked the Moon Embracing the Sun material. One interview that is often cited today actually shows Kim Yoo Jung enthusiastically calling Kim Soo Hyun her ideal type among the actors in the drama.

https://www.soompi.com/article/370912wpp/the-moon-that-embraces-the-suns-kim-yoo-jung-names-kim-soo-hyun-as-her-ideal-type

A few weeks later, however, another interview clarified that her actual celebrity ideal type was BIGBANG's T.O.P, and she explained that the previous story had been exaggerated. She described Kim Soo Hyun simply as "an oppa I like."

https://www.soompi.com/article/371733wpp/kim-yoo-jung-chooses-bigbangs-top-over-kim-soo-hyun-as-her-ideal-type

That is exactly why context matters. If I had only looked at the first interview, I could have built a completely different narrative than if I had stopped at the second one.

The same happened with Real. I rewatched it because I genuinely wanted to know whether my memory was wrong. By Korean mainstream standards in 2017, it was undeniably controversial. By international standards, however, I found it far less explicit than many American premium TV series or numerous European and Japanese films. Most of the outrage focused on Sulli rather than on the film's actual content.

Then I looked for something else.

If there had really been an obvious pattern of predatory behaviour long before 2025, I expected to find contemporaneous complaints from co-stars, parents of child actors, production staff, agencies or journalists.

Instead, what I repeatedly found were interviews, behind-the-scenes clips and remarks that became much more suspicious after the Kim Sae Ron allegations than they appeared before them.

That doesn't prove Kim Soo Hyun is innocent.

But it also doesn't prove that there was an obvious pattern everyone somehow ignored for more than a decade.

That's why our conclusions differ.

Research, to me, isn't about accumulating every fact that points in one direction. It's about testing whether a conclusion still survives when all the evidence—including chronology, original context and contradictory information—is taken into account.

For me, "innocent until proven guilty" is not a slogan, nor is it celebrity worship.

Years ago, someone I knew personally was falsely accused of rape. I watched rumours become "facts," assumptions become "evidence," and a man's entire life be rewritten around an accusation that was never proven. Even after no proof was found, people preferred the story because it felt more satisfying than uncertainty. He lost his career, his family and eventually his life.

That experience is why I cannot start with a conclusion and search only for evidence that supports it.

If I ever find verified evidence that genuinely changes my opinion of Kim Soo Hyun, I will change my opinion.

But after months of researching both before and after 2025, what I have found is not a continuous trail leading inevitably to guilt. I have found a mixture of verified facts, legitimate questions, disputed claims, and interpretations.

For me, those are not the same thing. And I think keeping those distinctions is the fairest way to approach any case—whether it concerns a celebrity or an ordinary person.

I accept that your opinion changed before the 2025 allegations. I am not questioning your personal chronology. What I am questioning is the certainty with which you now describe Kim Soo Hyun as having “abandoned” Kim Sae Ron solely to protect his money and reputation. That motive has not been established, and the documented timeline is more complicated.

You say that Kim Sae Ron left her previous agency to join “his” agency and that, as her sunbae, he therefore had a moral duty to support her “in any situation.” But Gold Medalist was newly established when Kim Soo Hyun, Seo Yea Ji and Kim Sae Ron all signed with it in January 2020. Kim Sae Ron’s YG Entertainment contract had already expired in November 2019. I have not found reliable contemporaneous evidence proving that she left YG specifically to follow Kim Soo Hyun. That interpretation largely comes from claims made after her death, not from the public explanation given when she signed.

Contemporary announcement of the three actors joining Gold Medalist:

https://www.hellokpop.com/news/goldmedalist-kim-soo-hyun-seo-ye-ji-kim-sae-ron/

This also matters chronologically. According to the relationship period acknowledged by Kim Soo Hyun’s side, they dated from summer 2019 until autumn 2020. Therefore, even under his version, their relationship had already begun before Gold Medalist officially launched and before Kim Sae Ron signed with it. Her joining the agency may have been influenced by him, but that has not been independently proven. According to the family’s disputed version, the relationship began much earlier. Those are competing accounts, not an “irrefutable fact.”

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/shows-dramas/20250314/kim-soo-hyuns-agency-says-he-dated-kim-sae-ron-for-1-year-after-she-became-adult

Kim Sae Ron’s DUI occurred on 18 May 2022, while Gold Medalist still represented her. The agency publicly apologised, handled compensation discussions and advanced substantial payments connected to penalties and damages arising from the accident. Her contract then expired in December 2022 and was not renewed. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that she was simply abandoned immediately when she became a liability. The agency continued dealing with the consequences of the accident during the remainder of her contract, although people may reasonably debate whether it later treated her with sufficient compassion.

https://celebconfirmed.com/news/Kim-Sae-ron-to-%27take-full-responsibility%27-for-drunk-driving-accident-3041

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/brands-ditch-south-korean-actor-kim-soo-hyun-over-dating-scandal-2025-03-17/

The debt dispute also involved Gold Medalist as a company, not a personal loan made by Kim Soo Hyun. The agency says it advanced approximately 700 million won in DUI-related compensation and penalties. It eventually sent Kim Sae Ron a certified legal notice in March 2024. Her family argues that the notice frightened her and that she posted the photograph because she could not reach Kim Soo Hyun. Gold Medalist argues that the notice was required for accounting and legal reasons and that lawyers advised Kim Soo Hyun not to intervene personally. Both explanations come from interested parties. Neither should automatically be treated as established truth.

Reuters reported the family lawyer’s explanation that she posted the photograph hoping Kim Soo Hyun would contact her:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/brands-ditch-south-korean-actor-kim-soo-hyun-over-dating-scandal-2025-03-17/

Gold Medalist’s explanation of the debt and legal communications was reported here:

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/shows-dramas/20250319/kim-soo-hyuns-agency-denies-demanding-damages-from-kim-sae-ron

I agree that the 2024 response looked cold. When Kim Sae Ron posted their photograph, Gold Medalist denied the dating rumours without acknowledging the past adult relationship. That wording damaged its credibility when it admitted the relationship in 2025. It is fair to criticise the agency and Kim Soo Hyun for choosing legal containment and reputation management rather than a humane public response.

But “he did not respond publicly” is not equivalent to “he did not care,” and neither proves that he personally decided to abandon her for financial gain. We do not know whether there were private discussions, legal restrictions, concern about reigniting the scandal, fear of public harassment, or simply emotional detachment after a relationship that—according to his account—had ended more than three years earlier.

The word sunbae also does not create an unlimited personal obligation. It describes seniority within a professional or social hierarchy. A sunbae may be culturally expected to advise or assist a junior, but it does not mean that a former partner must personally intervene in every legal, financial or career crisis indefinitely—especially after the junior is no longer represented by the same agency. Whether he should nevertheless have helped her is a moral opinion, not a documented professional duty.

There is another possible interpretation that your conclusion excludes. Kim Soo Hyun had already watched Sulli endure severe, gendered harassment following Real. He may have learned from that experience that public intervention only intensifies scandals and that silence, agencies and lawyers are safer. That strategy may have failed disastrously with Kim Sae Ron. It may have looked cruel and left her feeling rejected. But a fearful, reputation-conscious or misguided response is not automatically proof that he felt no concern or deliberately sacrificed her.

The Associated Press also documented that Kim Sae Ron’s distress cannot be reduced to one man. After the DUI, she faced the collapse of her career, financial liabilities, failed comeback attempts, intrusive reporting and relentless online judgment. Her family connects Kim Soo Hyun and the agency debt to her suffering; his side denies causing her death. No official finding has established one exclusive cause.

https://apnews.com/article/eb8a38533334d0b331e6febb0ea3a1ea

So I understand your moral criticism: you believe he should have reached out regardless of legal or professional consequences. That is a defensible personal standard. What is not yet factual is the narrative that he knowingly abandoned a dependent junior solely because she threatened his income and reputation.

The verified timeline shows an adult actress who joined a newly established agency in January 2020, remained represented during the 2022 DUI response, left when her contract expired in December 2022, received a company debt notice in March 2024 and tried to contact a former partner whose acknowledged relationship with her had reportedly ended years earlier. That timeline permits criticism of his silence. It does not prove the motive you assign to it.

I don't think that's a fair way to approach any investigation.

You say I'm "closing my eyes," but I've spent months reading court documents, timelines, Korean reports, interviews and the evidence presented by both sides. I don't ignore evidence because it doesn't fit my opinion—I question it, regardless of who presents it.

You also say that any forensic evidence supporting Kim Soo Hyun must have been manipulated because he is powerful. If that's the standard, then no investigation could ever clear a famous person, because every result you disagree with would automatically become proof of corruption.

I don't know whether Kim Soo Hyun is innocent or guilty. That's precisely why I follow the evidence instead of starting with the conclusion.

If new verified evidence proves he committed a crime, I'll accept it. But I won't call someone a criminal simply because I believe they could have manipulated evidence. Possibility is not proof.

We don't strengthen justice by abandoning the presumption of evidence. We weaken it for everyone.

I don't doubt that you had already formed a negative opinion of Kim Soo Hyun before the Kim Sae Ron controversy. I appreciate that distinction because it means your view wasn't simply shaped by 2025 social media.

I also went back and checked the examples you mentioned rather than relying on summaries.

The marriage comment is real. During the Secretly, Greatly showcase on 30 April 2013, Kim Soo Hyun explained that he had originally planned to marry at 36, but because of his career he now thought he might marry around 41. He then added that he could marry (or meet, depending on the translation) a 21-year-old woman at that age. The MC immediately joked that the future bride was probably still in kindergarten.

Soompi's contemporary English report:
https://www.soompi.com/article/495166wpp/kim-soo-hyun-wants-to-marry-a-woman-20-years-younger

Contemporary Korean report:
https://www.donga.com/news/Entertainment/article/all/20130501/54827690/4

I completely understand why some people found that comment uncomfortable. Even in 2013, many thought it was a poor joke. I don't think it's fair to pretend it never happened.

Where I become more cautious is when that remark is treated as evidence of attraction to minors. The quote demonstrates poor judgment and a large hypothetical age gap. It does not, by itself, establish grooming or sexual interest in children.

The same applies to Moon Embracing the Sun.

You mention videos with very young female co-stars, but I think those need to be examined individually rather than as a group. I haven't found reliable contemporaneous reporting describing inappropriate behaviour toward child actresses. What I did find are entertainment reports showing Kim Yoo Jung publicly saying she liked Kim Soo Hyun as her favourite actor in the drama, while Kim Soo Hyun treated her as a junior colleague.

For example:

https://www.soompi.com/article/370912wpp/the-moon-that-embraces-the-suns-kim-yoo-jung-names-kim-soo-hyun-as-her-ideal-type

Of course, that does not prove every interaction was appropriate. Nor does it prove they weren't. It simply means that if we're going to judge specific behaviour, I think we should look at the exact clip or interview rather than later compilations that mix many unrelated moments together.

That's really where our approaches differ.

I don't dismiss your discomfort. Some of his old interviews genuinely make me think, "That wasn't a good thing to say."

But I also don't think those interviews, the marriage remark, Real, and later events automatically combine into proof of a single underlying character trait.

As I mentioned previously, I think it's important to distinguish three different things:

"This comment makes me uncomfortable."
"This reflects poorly on his judgment or character."
"This demonstrates predatory behaviour."

The first is a personal reaction.
The second is a legitimate moral judgment.
The third is a factual conclusion that requires considerably stronger evidence.

That's why I continue separating verified facts from the broader conclusions drawn from them. I don't think your discomfort is illegitimate; I simply think the evidence still leaves room for more than one interpretation.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I actually think you've raised a legitimate question, but I believe you've gone one step further than the evidence allows.

After reading your comment, I went back through Real, Sulli's case, Kim Sae Ron's case, and the available interviews because I wanted to challenge my own opinion, not defend it blindly.

What I found is that there may be a recurring pattern—but not necessarily the one you describe.

Kim Soo Hyun clearly wanted to make Real. The production was unusual: the original director was replaced by Lee Sa-rang (his cousin), and Sulli later became the main target of criticism after the film's failure. Those facts are real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_(2017_film).

https://www.soompi.com/article/1003457wpp/kim-soo-hyun-candidly-talks-bed-scene-sulli

Years later, Sulli's brother publicly questioned the filming conditions and whether a body double had been available. Those are serious questions that deserve investigation, but they remain allegations and have never been confirmed by any court or official investigation.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/films/20250329/late-singer-actress-sullis-brother-questions-kim-soo-hyun-and-real-director-over-2017-film

The same applies to Kim Sae Ron.

Her 2024 photo, the later admission of an adult relationship, and Gold Medalist's poorly worded response all legitimately raise questions about how the situation was handled.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korean-actor-kim-soo-hyun-denies-underage-dating-accusation-2025-03-31/

But what I don't see is evidence that Kim Soo Hyun deliberately "uses women and abandons them."

Ironically, what I see is almost the opposite.

If Real taught him anything, it may have been that scandals destroy people and that agencies respond by saying as little as possible. Then, in 2024, when Kim Sae Ron posted the photo, the agency again chose the legal, corporate response instead of a human one.

That strategy may have been emotionally devastating for Kim Sae Ron. It may also have been a terrible mistake.

But a terrible mistake isn't the same as malicious intent.

Psychology also tells us something important: after a suicide, surviving friends and former partners often experience intense guilt and endless "What if...?" thinking, even when they were not the cause. So when people dismiss Kim Soo Hyun's tears as fake, they're making exactly the same mistake as those who insist they prove his innocence. We simply cannot determine someone's motives from a press conference.

What I think is fair to criticise is this:

Kim Soo Hyun may be extremely private, conflict-avoidant and reputation-conscious. He may rely too much on agencies and lawyers to deal with personal crises instead of confronting them directly. If that's true, it can deeply hurt the people around him.

But that's still very different from saying he is a misogynist or that he caused two women to take their own lives.

Sulli had endured years of misogynistic cyberbullying before her death, something documented by Reuters and many Korean outlets.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/k-pop-singer-decries-cyber-bullying-after-death-of-activist-star-sulli-idUSKBN1WV1L1/

Kim Sae Ron, likewise, had been living under extraordinary pressure since her 2022 DUI: career collapse, financial difficulties, failed comeback attempts and relentless online harassment, all documented independently of Kim Soo Hyun.

https://apnews.com/article/eb8a38533334d0b331e6febb0ea3a1ea

So I don't think the evidence currently supports the conclusion that Kim Soo Hyun destroyed two women.

What I think the evidence does support is a more nuanced and, perhaps, more tragic possibility: someone who repeatedly responded to crises with silence, lawyers and reputation management, believing that was the safest course, only to discover too late that silence can also wound people.

To me, that's a far more human explanation than either "he's a monster" or "he's perfect."