"Justice for Kim Sae Ron" idiots here do not understand that they SUPPORT A MAN, KIM SE UI. What the actual…
The arrest warrant request sets out the facts, so it is already known that the accusations against Kim Soo-hyun were false. In the future, the punishments for all those who participated in the commission of this crime will be determined.
So sad that he has such idiotic fans. Lol if it was actually fake why not just say that in the beginning. It's…
He said it from the beginning. This is the reason why he filed a criminal complaint. That he was right was seen today. The admission of the arrest warrant shows without a doubt that Kim Soo-hyun was right. The completion of the investigation can only bring individualized punishments for those involved.
The court granted the request for an arrest warrant for Kim Se Ui. Kim Se Ui is currently in police custody, and the case involving Kim Soo Hyun may proceed with priority while a suspect is under detention, in accordance with procedural rules. According to reports, the court found sufficient grounds to support allegations of criminal conduct, including defamation through the dissemination of allegedly false information. The court appears to have considered the seriousness of the matter, including the argument that, as a journalist, Kim Se Ui should have exercised a heightened duty of verification regarding the authenticity of the evidence presented. There are also allegations of involvement in the presentation or possible manipulation of evidence, though these matters remain subject to judicial determination. Reports further indicate that one of the decisive factors in issuing the arrest warrant was the allegation that certain materials presented publicly may have been falsified or misleading, allegedly creating the impression that Kim Soo Hyun had a relationship with KSR while she was still a minor. These allegations will ultimately need to be established in court. Companies such as Cuckoo, Dinto, and FromBio already have lawsuits pending against Kim Soo Hyun and will now have to clarify the basis on which they filed claims for damages. The court is reportedly awaiting these explanations. In the meantime, Kim Se Ui has been arrested, a development that could significantly affect the context of these proceedings The next person raising serious concerns is the family lawyer, who is reportedly named as a suspect in the application for pretrial detention of Garo0. As an attorney, he may be considered to pose an increased degree of social danger due to his professional status and legal obligations. He did not merely act as legal counsel but allegedly participated in the public presentation of evidence that has been determined to be false, contributing to the defamation of Kim Soo Hyun. His role in these events may therefore face further judicial examination. https://v.daum.net/v/20260526221502143 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsKO2hXkDdA
If you don't agree with the age difference, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But from here to calling…
I post here for @Sanoya, because she blocked me: This may represent your personal point of view, but it does not necessarily reflect reality or morality. What I do not consider moral is intentionally associating unrelated events, dates, and fragments of information in order to create the false impression of a relationship that, according to the publicly discussed timeline and evidence, did not exist at that particular point in time. Presenting a later relationship as if it existed years earlier by selectively connecting unrelated details is not truth-seeking, it is narrative building. I also do not think it is morally fair to portray someone as having been “seduced” while ignoring the broader context of their own life and level of maturity. By public accounts, she had relationships from a young age, had already been involved in behavior generally associated with independence and adult decision-making, and lived under circumstances that suggest emotional maturity developed much earlier than usual. Whether one agrees with those choices or not, reducing her entire story to a simplistic victim narrative ignores important context. At the same time, if there is a moral issue worth discussing, it may be the environment surrounding her upbringing. A child actor exposed to highly adult situations at a young age like emotionally intense roles, physical intimacy in productions (2015 MBC drama Glamorous Temptation and not just this one), public pressure, and financial expectations, can face serious psychological consequences. These are difficult realities that deserve honest discussion. Her legal guardians and the adults responsible for her career made decisions regarding the projects she participated in while she was still very young. If we are going to have a conversation about morality, then responsibility should be examined first. What morally discredits a discussion is not disagreement, but the persistence of serious accusations while ignoring timeline inconsistencies, contradictory evidence, and the broader reality of what may actually have happened. Morality cannot be built on selective facts and manufactured impressions.
If you don't agree with the age difference, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But from here to calling…
For sanoya because she blocked me: I genuinely wonder why you keep repeating that she was 17 while simultaneously using expressions such as “barely legal,” as if they had been in a relationship at that time. That implication is precisely the problem. Honestly speaking, the letter itself contains nothing romantic, and it was sent in 2018. At most, it shows that they knew each other. Expressions such as “I miss you” are not proof of a romantic relationship, especially when someone is in the military and separated from family, friends, and people they know professionally. Let’s also not forget an important fact: the family themselves submitted that letter to the police. During the investigation, it was reportedly established that there was no indication of a relationship while she was underage. The letter is precisely what the family and Garo publicly relied on to shape public perception. At the same time, investigators are reportedly reviewing additional evidence that has not been made public — as it legally should not be during an ongoing investigation. Based on what has reportedly emerged from that process, there appears to be no evidence supporting the claim that a relationship existed before 2019. Another important point: the family publicly suggested there were multiple letters. Yet only a single letter was reportedly submitted to the police. So when people repeatedly refer to “letters” in the plural, they are repeating something for which no evidence has been publicly shown. This is exactly why people question the narrative. Repeatedly connecting the age of 17, military service, and a single non-romantic letter creates an impression that is not supported by the publicly discussed timeline. At some point, it becomes fair to ask whether this is about facts — or about sustaining a predetermined accusation. You are not defending the deceased by repeating claims that are disputed by the available timeline and evidence. If anything, turning assumptions into facts helps no one and only deepens public manipulation. C’mon, mane… we both know what’s happening here. Repeating the same associations over and over does not suddenly make them facts.
This is ridiculous. He dated her once upon a time and because he’s rich and famous when she got into financial…
The key words here are false accusations and manipulation. Using the plural form when referring to the letters is nothing more than a manipulation tactic. There was reportedly only one known letter sent from the military, and it was sent in response to a letter she had written first, not as evidence of an ongoing romantic relationship. At the time they reportedly started dating, she was already 19 years old. As I mentioned in another comment, there are well-known acting and celebrity couples in South Korea with age differences of 17–18 years, including cases where the woman is significantly older than the man. An age gap alone does not automatically make someone a predator. Relationships cannot realistically be categorized from the outside based on assumptions alone. More importantly, repeatedly emphasizing that she was 17 while simultaneously associating that age with his military service and the period of their relationship creates a misleading narrative. It relies on the same technique reportedly used by Garo and the family: linking unrelated dates and a single letter to create the impression that the relationship began much earlier than the publicly discussed timeline suggests. Whether intentional or not, selectively connecting events in this way does not establish facts, it creates an impression designed to lead people toward a predetermined conclusion.
Unless he dated her at 21 or later he’s still a predator. He himself said he dated her at 18…. What would…
You are not correct about the age issue either. Legally speaking, the age of consent in South Korea is 16. Therefore, the repeated claim that a relationship beginning when she was already 19 somehow occurred “as soon as she became legal” is factually inaccurate and does not align with the publicly discussed timeline. You also seem to confuse the legal age of consent with the age of majority or marriage-related legal status. These are different legal concepts. As for the age gap argument, age differences alone do not prove exploitation or misconduct. There are many well-known couples with significant age gaps, including cases where the woman is considerably older than the man: Namgoong Min & Jin Ah-reum, Baek Ji-young & Jung Suk-won, T-ARA’s Soyeon & Cho Yu-min, Shim Mina & Ryu Phillip, Gong Hyo-jin & Kevin Oh, Ham So-won & Chen Hua, and Ma Dong-seok & Ye Jung-hwa, among many others. Disliking an age gap is a personal opinion. Labeling someone based on assumptions while ignoring the actual timeline and legal facts is something entirely different.
Unless he dated her at 21 or later he’s still a predator. He himself said he dated her at 18…. What would…
"I said this because they could’ve simply filed a lawsuit against gold medalist and Kim Soo hyun the company for debt they allegedly promised to cover and Kim Soo hyun for dating an underage girl...." A correction must be made here: there was no legal basis for filing a complaint regarding either the deceased’s alleged debt or an alleged relationship that supposedly began when she was a minor, because the available information does not support either claim. Regarding the debt, messages from the deceased’s manager reportedly indicate that an agreement had already been reached between Gold Medalist and the manager that no forced collection action would be pursued. A debt recovery impossibility procedure had allegedly already begun, which could ultimately result in the debt being written off. As for the relationship, the evidence publicly discussed points to it beginning when Kim Sae-ron was already 19 years old, not when she was a minor. If we look at her past relationships, it is publicly known that she had reportedly dated an idol group member at 15, and by 16 there were reports linking her to both an actor and a rapper. In 2018, she was reportedly involved in multiple relationships. Whether one agrees with it or not, portraying her as someone completely naïve or emotionally inexperienced is an oversimplification. That said, I am not judging or condemning her. By many accounts, she had an extremely difficult environment and a family situation that may have contributed to serious emotional struggles. She was exposed to projects at a very young age that, for an actual child, could carry significant psychological consequences. It is also publicly known that Kim Soo-hyun was reportedly in another relationship from around 2016. Despite being aware of this, Kim Sae-ron allegedly pursued contact with him. The often-repeated narrative about letters sent during military service is also misleading: there appears to be only one known letter from 2018, and it was not romantic in nature. Reports suggest that contact between them developed later, after Kim Soo-hyun’s previous relationship ended in 2019. The issue here is simple: accusations this serious should be based on verified evidence, not assumptions, edited narratives, or retroactive interpretations.
Unless he dated her at 21 or later he’s still a predator. He himself said he dated her at 18…. What would…
"Weren’t the family member of the late actress the one who went to the YouTuber and also hired the legal representative? Why is it only the legal representative being the one booked for false accusations?" Either you do not understand the legal implications, or you started posting messages with a very specific agenda. No one said that the family or other individuals are not involved, or that only the YouTuber and the lawyer are being accused. That conclusion has no factual basis and misrepresents what is actually being discussed. A request for an arrest warrant does not mean that only the person targeted by that request is guilty. It means there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual may obstruct the investigation, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or repeat the alleged conduct, thereby posing a risk to the victim, the investigation, or society. Journalism carries a professional duty to verify information. There also appear to be claims that Kim Se-ui have intentions to destroy the evidence. This may explain why the deceased’s father reportedly did not hand over the phone. The request for an arrest warrant itself reportedly raised concerns about the risk of evidence being destroyed, and the device was never surrendered. Similarly, the lawyer’s role is also being scrutinized. As a legal professional, he would have understood both the legal implications and the evidentiary value of messages, photos, or alleged AI recordings. What has been emphasized is that, although no complaint may initially have been filed against the lawyer, investigators reportedly concluded that he may have participated in the alleged conduct as an accomplice. Being a journalist or a lawyer is not a shield from responsibility. On the contrary, professional expertise may increase accountability. In conclusion, this is not a case involving only Kim Se-ui and the lawyer. According to the prosecutor's request for the arrest warrant, the deceased’s father and other individuals are also reportedly considered suspects. Responsibility and legal consequences will depend on each person’s role and level of participation in the alleged conduct.
it's disgusting, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it's moral or not disgustin. If rape weren't…
In addition to the fact that your messages fall within the scope of criminal law, you are making false statements. The police were notified by the filing of a criminal complaint by Kim Soo-hyun. Not only did the police conclude that an arrest was necessary, but the prosecutor in the case found that there was a criminal act committed by the youtuber, the family lawyer and others, and an arrest warrant must be issued. This request will be approved or not by the court depending on the social danger represented by the person for whom the arrest warrant was proposed to be issued. It is a legal procedure, based on the evidence in the file, not on statements. Conclusion: KSH was not accused, KSH filed the complaint against those who committed criminal acts that may or may not prove to be crimes.
Legally speaking, the authenticity of evidence consists in the presentation of the original. The recording presented could not be technically examined by forensic experts because it was not the original to confirm authenticity. The impossibility of presenting the original can only be determined by the fact that there is no original. The logical conclusion is that it is a fake. Not to mention the fact that the very person who handed over this recording to the family later admitted that it was not authentic.
Since some people are still spreading false information, I’m quoting from the prosecutors’ resolution, which states that it was established that Kim Soo-hyun and the deceased were not in a relationship when she was a minor.
“As the prosecution requested an arrest warrant for Kim Se-ui, head of Garo Sero Research Institute, who is accused of defaming actor Kim Soo-hyun, the police concluded through their investigation that the claim that Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron dated while she was a minor was false.” The police stated: “The suspect (the bereaved family’s lawyer) committed the crime in an organized and premeditated manner, not only by providing evidence related to the crime to CEO Kim and spreading false information, but also by amplifying and reproducing it.” https://n.news.naver.com/article/025/0003524854?sid=102 The schadenfreudian joy is also ridiculous, considering that Kim Soo-hyun’s dramas, such as Queen of Tears and My Love from the Stars, were rebroadcast in Korea in May and attracted a sizable audience. Furthermore, Queen of Tears is one of the most-watched series in Netflix history, which makes the claims that KSH is “canceled” seem absurd. And Knock-Off is coming!
Following the investigation into Kim Soo Hyun's case, it was concluded that the accusations were based on falsified evidence, allegedly involving the direct participation of Kim Se ui. According to the findings, Kim Soo Hyun's photo was inserted into KakaoTalk messages involving an unidentified contact in order to create the impression that the actor was the person with whom the deceased had been in a relationship at that time. Although Kim Se ui allegedly knew the truth, he nevertheless presented the falsified evidence and publicly accused the actor during his YouTube broadcasts and at a press conference. The deceased's family did not hand over the phone containing the relevant messages, despite the investigation team's request that all evidence previously presented in public be submitted. The only material reportedly provided by the deceased's side was a copied recording, which allegedly turned out to have been manipulated using AI. The family's lawyer was also reportedly identified as a possible accomplice, and prosecutors may be asked to take ex officio action in order to determine the nature of the alleged 20% stipulated in the legal assistance agreement, particularly given that no clear legal action appears to have been undertaken to justify such a fee, especially considering that the contract was signed before the presentation of the allegedly falsified evidence and the public accusations against KSH. For these reasons, on Tuesday, 26.05.2026, at 10:30 a.m., the proposal to arrest Kim Se ui will be examined. If the court considers that his release poses a risk, Kim Se ui may be taken into custody. If the court determines that the investigation can continue without detention, the arrest request may not be approved. However, this would not necessarily mean that Kim Se ui and the family would avoid potential charges. According to the investigation's conclusions, the picture appears to be becoming increasingly clear. We may be approaching the moment when the bill is finally placed on the table for those who, until now, have treated Kim Soo Hyun's suffering as entertainment. The party is over, but the bill is just around the corner.
What really got me was his behavior around her inebriated driving incident at the restaurant. (I think most people…
Your reply is based on a false premise. First, it was not KSH who asked her to move the car, but the restaurant manager. Second, asking the owner to move a car does not automatically mean the owner had to drive it while intoxicated. She could have asked any sober person nearby to move it, but for reasons known only to her, she chose to do it herself. That subject itself is tragic, and there is no point in discussing it. Anyway your message is just a pathetic lie And no, I do not keep a “library of links.” I simply believe that when someone makes a public claim, it should be researched first. After all, above the keyboard there should be more than just the hands that type.
6 
11 
According to reports, the court found sufficient grounds to support allegations of criminal conduct, including defamation through the dissemination of allegedly false information. The court appears to have considered the seriousness of the matter, including the argument that, as a journalist, Kim Se Ui should have exercised a heightened duty of verification regarding the authenticity of the evidence presented. There are also allegations of involvement in the presentation or possible manipulation of evidence, though these matters remain subject to judicial determination.
Reports further indicate that one of the decisive factors in issuing the arrest warrant was the allegation that certain materials presented publicly may have been falsified or misleading, allegedly creating the impression that Kim Soo Hyun had a relationship with KSR while she was still a minor. These allegations will ultimately need to be established in court.
Companies such as Cuckoo, Dinto, and FromBio already have lawsuits pending against Kim Soo Hyun and will now have to clarify the basis on which they filed claims for damages. The court is reportedly awaiting these explanations. In the meantime, Kim Se Ui has been arrested, a development that could significantly affect the context of these proceedings
The next person raising serious concerns is the family lawyer, who is reportedly named as a suspect in the application for pretrial detention of Garo0. As an attorney, he may be considered to pose an increased degree of social danger due to his professional status and legal obligations. He did not merely act as legal counsel but allegedly participated in the public presentation of evidence that has been determined to be false, contributing to the defamation of Kim Soo Hyun. His role in these events may therefore face further judicial examination.
https://v.daum.net/v/20260526221502143
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsKO2hXkDdA
This may represent your personal point of view, but it does not necessarily reflect reality or morality.
What I do not consider moral is intentionally associating unrelated events, dates, and fragments of information in order to create the false impression of a relationship that, according to the publicly discussed timeline and evidence, did not exist at that particular point in time. Presenting a later relationship as if it existed years earlier by selectively connecting unrelated details is not truth-seeking, it is narrative building.
I also do not think it is morally fair to portray someone as having been “seduced” while ignoring the broader context of their own life and level of maturity. By public accounts, she had relationships from a young age, had already been involved in behavior generally associated with independence and adult decision-making, and lived under circumstances that suggest emotional maturity developed much earlier than usual. Whether one agrees with those choices or not, reducing her entire story to a simplistic victim narrative ignores important context.
At the same time, if there is a moral issue worth discussing, it may be the environment surrounding her upbringing. A child actor exposed to highly adult situations at a young age like emotionally intense roles, physical intimacy in productions (2015 MBC drama Glamorous Temptation and not just this one), public pressure, and financial expectations, can face serious psychological consequences. These are difficult realities that deserve honest discussion.
Her legal guardians and the adults responsible for her career made decisions regarding the projects she participated in while she was still very young. If we are going to have a conversation about morality, then responsibility should be examined first.
What morally discredits a discussion is not disagreement, but the persistence of serious accusations while ignoring timeline inconsistencies, contradictory evidence, and the broader reality of what may actually have happened. Morality cannot be built on selective facts and manufactured impressions.
I genuinely wonder why you keep repeating that she was 17 while simultaneously using expressions such as “barely legal,” as if they had been in a relationship at that time. That implication is precisely the problem.
Honestly speaking, the letter itself contains nothing romantic, and it was sent in 2018. At most, it shows that they knew each other. Expressions such as “I miss you” are not proof of a romantic relationship, especially when someone is in the military and separated from family, friends, and people they know professionally.
Let’s also not forget an important fact: the family themselves submitted that letter to the police. During the investigation, it was reportedly established that there was no indication of a relationship while she was underage. The letter is precisely what the family and Garo publicly relied on to shape public perception.
At the same time, investigators are reportedly reviewing additional evidence that has not been made public — as it legally should not be during an ongoing investigation. Based on what has reportedly emerged from that process, there appears to be no evidence supporting the claim that a relationship existed before 2019.
Another important point: the family publicly suggested there were multiple letters. Yet only a single letter was reportedly submitted to the police. So when people repeatedly refer to “letters” in the plural, they are repeating something for which no evidence has been publicly shown.
This is exactly why people question the narrative. Repeatedly connecting the age of 17, military service, and a single non-romantic letter creates an impression that is not supported by the publicly discussed timeline. At some point, it becomes fair to ask whether this is about facts — or about sustaining a predetermined accusation.
You are not defending the deceased by repeating claims that are disputed by the available timeline and evidence. If anything, turning assumptions into facts helps no one and only deepens public manipulation.
C’mon, mane… we both know what’s happening here. Repeating the same associations over and over does not suddenly make them facts.
Using the plural form when referring to the letters is nothing more than a manipulation tactic. There was reportedly only one known letter sent from the military, and it was sent in response to a letter she had written first, not as evidence of an ongoing romantic relationship.
At the time they reportedly started dating, she was already 19 years old.
As I mentioned in another comment, there are well-known acting and celebrity couples in South Korea with age differences of 17–18 years, including cases where the woman is significantly older than the man. An age gap alone does not automatically make someone a predator. Relationships cannot realistically be categorized from the outside based on assumptions alone. More importantly, repeatedly emphasizing that she was 17 while simultaneously associating that age with his military service and the period of their relationship creates a misleading narrative. It relies on the same technique reportedly used by Garo and the family: linking unrelated dates and a single letter to create the impression that the relationship began much earlier than the publicly discussed timeline suggests.
Whether intentional or not, selectively connecting events in this way does not establish facts, it creates an impression designed to lead people toward a predetermined conclusion.
Legally speaking, the age of consent in South Korea is 16. Therefore, the repeated claim that a relationship beginning when she was already 19 somehow occurred “as soon as she became legal” is factually inaccurate and does not align with the publicly discussed timeline.
You also seem to confuse the legal age of consent with the age of majority or marriage-related legal status. These are different legal concepts.
As for the age gap argument, age differences alone do not prove exploitation or misconduct. There are many well-known couples with significant age gaps, including cases where the woman is considerably older than the man: Namgoong Min & Jin Ah-reum, Baek Ji-young & Jung Suk-won, T-ARA’s Soyeon & Cho Yu-min, Shim Mina & Ryu Phillip, Gong Hyo-jin & Kevin Oh, Ham So-won & Chen Hua, and Ma Dong-seok & Ye Jung-hwa, among many others.
Disliking an age gap is a personal opinion. Labeling someone based on assumptions while ignoring the actual timeline and legal facts is something entirely different.
A correction must be made here: there was no legal basis for filing a complaint regarding either the deceased’s alleged debt or an alleged relationship that supposedly began when she was a minor, because the available information does not support either claim.
Regarding the debt, messages from the deceased’s manager reportedly indicate that an agreement had already been reached between Gold Medalist and the manager that no forced collection action would be pursued. A debt recovery impossibility procedure had allegedly already begun, which could ultimately result in the debt being written off.
As for the relationship, the evidence publicly discussed points to it beginning when Kim Sae-ron was already 19 years old, not when she was a minor.
If we look at her past relationships, it is publicly known that she had reportedly dated an idol group member at 15, and by 16 there were reports linking her to both an actor and a rapper. In 2018, she was reportedly involved in multiple relationships. Whether one agrees with it or not, portraying her as someone completely naïve or emotionally inexperienced is an oversimplification.
That said, I am not judging or condemning her. By many accounts, she had an extremely difficult environment and a family situation that may have contributed to serious emotional struggles. She was exposed to projects at a very young age that, for an actual child, could carry significant psychological consequences.
It is also publicly known that Kim Soo-hyun was reportedly in another relationship from around 2016. Despite being aware of this, Kim Sae-ron allegedly pursued contact with him. The often-repeated narrative about letters sent during military service is also misleading: there appears to be only one known letter from 2018, and it was not romantic in nature. Reports suggest that contact between them developed later, after Kim Soo-hyun’s previous relationship ended in 2019.
The issue here is simple: accusations this serious should be based on verified evidence, not assumptions, edited narratives, or retroactive interpretations.
Either you do not understand the legal implications, or you started posting messages with a very specific agenda. No one said that the family or other individuals are not involved, or that only the YouTuber and the lawyer are being accused. That conclusion has no factual basis and misrepresents what is actually being discussed.
A request for an arrest warrant does not mean that only the person targeted by that request is guilty. It means there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual may obstruct the investigation, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or repeat the alleged conduct, thereby posing a risk to the victim, the investigation, or society. Journalism carries a professional duty to verify information. There also appear to be claims that Kim Se-ui have intentions to destroy the evidence. This may explain why the deceased’s father reportedly did not hand over the phone. The request for an arrest warrant itself reportedly raised concerns about the risk of evidence being destroyed, and the device was never surrendered.
Similarly, the lawyer’s role is also being scrutinized. As a legal professional, he would have understood both the legal implications and the evidentiary value of messages, photos, or alleged AI recordings. What has been emphasized is that, although no complaint may initially have been filed against the lawyer, investigators reportedly concluded that he may have participated in the alleged conduct as an accomplice.
Being a journalist or a lawyer is not a shield from responsibility. On the contrary, professional expertise may increase accountability.
In conclusion, this is not a case involving only Kim Se-ui and the lawyer. According to the prosecutor's request for the arrest warrant, the deceased’s father and other individuals are also reportedly considered suspects. Responsibility and legal consequences will depend on each person’s role and level of participation in the alleged conduct.
“As the prosecution requested an arrest warrant for Kim Se-ui, head of Garo Sero Research Institute, who is accused of defaming actor Kim Soo-hyun, the police concluded through their investigation that the claim that Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron dated while she was a minor was false.”
The police stated: “The suspect (the bereaved family’s lawyer) committed the crime in an organized and premeditated manner, not only by providing evidence related to the crime to CEO Kim and spreading false information, but also by amplifying and reproducing it.”
https://n.news.naver.com/article/025/0003524854?sid=102
The schadenfreudian joy is also ridiculous, considering that Kim Soo-hyun’s dramas, such as Queen of Tears and My Love from the Stars, were rebroadcast in Korea in May and attracted a sizable audience. Furthermore, Queen of Tears is one of the most-watched series in Netflix history, which makes the claims that KSH is “canceled” seem absurd.
And Knock-Off is coming!
Although Kim Se ui allegedly knew the truth, he nevertheless presented the falsified evidence and publicly accused the actor during his YouTube broadcasts and at a press conference.
The deceased's family did not hand over the phone containing the relevant messages, despite the investigation team's request that all evidence previously presented in public be submitted. The only material reportedly provided by the deceased's side was a copied recording, which allegedly turned out to have been manipulated using AI.
The family's lawyer was also reportedly identified as a possible accomplice, and prosecutors may be asked to take ex officio action in order to determine the nature of the alleged 20% stipulated in the legal assistance agreement, particularly given that no clear legal action appears to have been undertaken to justify such a fee, especially considering that the contract was signed before the presentation of the allegedly falsified evidence and the public accusations against KSH.
For these reasons, on Tuesday, 26.05.2026, at 10:30 a.m., the proposal to arrest Kim Se ui will be examined. If the court considers that his release poses a risk, Kim Se ui may be taken into custody. If the court determines that the investigation can continue without detention, the arrest request may not be approved. However, this would not necessarily mean that Kim Se ui and the family would avoid potential charges.
According to the investigation's conclusions, the picture appears to be becoming increasingly clear. We may be approaching the moment when the bill is finally placed on the table for those who, until now, have treated Kim Soo Hyun's suffering as entertainment.
The party is over, but the bill is just around the corner.
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260520183100004
And no, I do not keep a “library of links.” I simply believe that when someone makes a public claim, it should be researched first. After all, above the keyboard there should be more than just the hands that type.