Sunny Day

Unfortunately, they took on a process far too early.

I agree that based on what has been made public, no reference was made to an organized criminal group, but I didn't make such a statement either. Also, let’s not forget that the individuals mentioned are named as suspects. Since there are other suspects involved in committing the same offense, this fact implies the commission of a crime through the participation of multiple individuals. Now, what is the participation of multiple people for the purpose of committing an offense? Some individuals may be co-perpetrators, others merely accomplices, but this does not exclude the idea of a criminal group. Furthermore, if you read closely, you will see that I stated the transfer was made through the prism of procedural rules regarding jurisdiction, which determine the transfer of a case to a court competent to try the act in relation to its specific nature, and a three-judge panel takes on more serious cases. In this specific case, it was precisely my professional opinion that the acts for which Kim Se-ui was sent to trial do not fit into a typical case tried by a three-judge panel, one explanation potentially being precisely the formation of an organized criminal group, which represents an aggravating factor. I took into account Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The legal provisions regarding the organization and functioning of the court are supplemented by the incident procedural legal provisions, distinguishing between civil and criminal proceedings. Also, let us not forget that Kim Se-ui's case was severed because detention was urgent, whereas such a measure was not required for the other individuals. The continuation of Kim Se-ui's detention remains a reality, which shows that the courts deemed the measure necessary and that the charges in the indictment are likewise real. I did not present this fact as a verdict, but merely included it in the analysis of the severity of the offense's classification, not through the accumulation of offenses, but by extracting from the indictment those aspects that will ultimately complete the case. But even this analysis was mine; reading closely, you will notice this because I referred to an older message of mine. Therefore, without having any issue with your observations, I believe they could have been issued only if they were correct and necessary.

Apparently, distinguishing between a hypothesis, legal presumptions ,an inference and a proven fact is the part you find most difficult. So, keep having fun. There’s no point in leafing through treatises on legal procedure; they won’t be of any use to you anyway. After all, you can have fun in life without a reason.

The way this person conducts themselves on this page is clearly intended to make an impression. Unfortunately, their observations have no ...basis. Still, given this individual’s supposedly multifaceted “expertise,” I look forward to witnessing their next “feat” on this page.
This person's attitude is worthy of being cited as an example in the analysis of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I wonder which professional field they will venture into next.

You continue to criticize a version of my text that I did not write.

I did not state that the indictment, the detention decision or the transfer to a three-judge panel constituted a conviction or a judicial finding that every allegation was true. I analyzed those procedural developments under the applicable legal framework and drew conclusions about what they could reasonably indicate regarding the subsequent direction of the case. Presenting a legal inference as though it were a claim of an already established judicial fact is a misrepresentation of my argument.

The fact that the court did not publicly state the precise reason for the transfer does not invalidate an analysis based on the applicable jurisdictional and procedural provisions. Nor does it mean that the only permissible analysis is a repetition of what has appeared in the press. A court’s public explanation and the legal consequences that may be inferred from the procedural framework are not the same thing.

Your statement that I connected the transfer definitively to an aggravated criminal-group charge is also inaccurate. I identified that classification as the likely legal trajectory based on the indictment and the alleged participation of several persons. I did not present it as a conclusion already announced by the court. The fact that the case was subsequently transferred does not entitle you to rewrite my prediction as a categorical factual claim.

The point concerning the legal-assistance agreement is not speculative. The agreement must identify its subject matter and the legal services to be provided, and the fee must correspond to that agreed subject matter. A later complaint cannot be treated retroactively as an action covered by the original agreement if it was not included in its defined scope. A subsequent amendment or new mandate would be a separate legal basis; it would not alter what the original contract covered.

The 30% fee is relevant for precisely this reason. If the fee was calculated as a percentage of an amount recovered, the agreement must identify the legal services and the recovery to which that fee related. A criminal complaint filed later cannot retroactively supply the original contract with a different subject matter.

I also did not claim that the MIDO judgment automatically determines every other case. I referred to it as a precedent in the ordinary sense of a first relevant decision capable of influencing similar proceedings, not as binding precedent. Again, you are correcting a proposition that I did not make.

You are entitled to disagree with my interpretation. You are not entitled to replace my analysis with a more extreme version, refute that version, and then present the result as an objective correction of my text. If you wish to respond, address the claims I actually made.

And one more point regarding Boo Ji-seok: if you interpret the later complaint based on the audio recording as having been made under that original legal assistance agreement, then what exactly was the 30% fee contingent upon? How would a fee structured as 30% of any recovery relate to a criminal complaint, particularly when no civil claim for damages had yet been pursued?

I’m not sure you actually read my article carefully, or whether you had already decided what you wanted to say before reading it.
Regarding Boo Ji-seok, what I wrote was precise: he did not file or initiate any complaint or judicial proceedings against Kim Soo Hyun under that legal assistance agreement. The later complaint, filed after the audio recording emerged, was not known when the agreement was signed and cannot retroactively be treated as an action taken under that agreement.
As for the rest, I accurately presented what follows from the prosecutor’s indictment and what can reasonably be inferred from the court’s rejection of Kim Se-ui’s challenge to his detention. The indictment details the involvement of additional participants, and certain aggravated offenses involving criminal groups fall within the jurisdiction of a three-judge panel; hence my view regarding the transfer of the case. Whether that view proves correct remains to be seen.
Nowhere did I state that the court had already rendered a verdict on these matters.
Regarding the MIDO ruling, I expressly presented it as a precedent, while the postponement of the other compensation cases pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings is an indication that those courts are also considering the same underlying issues.
Therefore, while I have no problem with legitimate disagreement, your comments largely address claims that I simply did not make.

It’s fascinating how confidently you mistake legal ignorance for legal logic. What you dismiss as “theory” is, in fact, a basic part of legal reasoning: courts routinely assess circumstantial evidence and indicia and draw reasoned inferences from established facts, conduct and reactions.
You may call such an inference a “theory” in ordinary language, but that does not make it a mere personal opinion. Courts routinely reach conclusions from circumstances even where no direct evidence exists.
So by all means, keep laughing at “theories.” Just make sure you don’t discover in court that some of those “theories” are called legal presumptions.

I haven't prepared, but I will!

You demand “tangible proof” because you don't understand that courts routinely rely on circumstantial evidence and judicial presumptions.
In law, this is called a praesumptio hominis based on id quod plerumque accidit. Judges use precisely this type of reasoning: logical human behavior and economic self-interest are known facts from which unknown facts are inferred.
A judge will not laugh at presumptions (or theories, as you call them) because this is precisely how legal reasoning operates. My Way’s logic is correct.

Correct!

Reading the details of the lawsuits now, I can’t help but be amused. The companies are seeking damages and the case is being heard on September 18, while KSH is at the TMA on September 19, as a proof that the public and fans are waiting for him. What ruling could the judges possibly hand down?

Well pointed out!

Well said!

I like the reaction. You really know how to have fun.

I’m actually waiting for the HighEnd release and the pictorial to come out so I can see the reaction online. I’m convinced that HighEnd didn’t make this decision until they already had the impact results, but I’m still curious about how the “professional haters” operate.

Even if the request for a jury trial is not rejected, the case on the merits will ultimately still be decided by judges. The evidence is so clear that I view this request as nothing more than a brazen attempt to manipulate public opinion. It is evident that he is trying to delay the trial so that he can be released. If my calculations are correct, his detention can only be extended until December. He hopes that, once free, he can stir up a commotion again and pressure the judges by manipulating public opinion and discrediting the court panel.

Girls, I can tell you’re having a great time!

I agree. It will be very interesting to see the reaction of the others involved. Garo0 invented political oppression. What arguments will they put forward?

MIDO case is the first real victory. Although MIDO argued that they could no longer use the actor's image due to the situation arising from the public accusations, the judge was not swayed by such claims. In fact, we know that the companies continued to use the actor's image abroad and that the alleged harm did not exist. The judge made a brilliant point: compensation cannot be sought from victims, who are innocent individuals.
The court rejected MIDO's claim for return of 570 million won in contract deposits, ruling that no grounds for contract termination existed and that controversies stemming from fabricated false allegations by third parties did not constitute valid contractual grounds for holding Kim Soo Hyun or his agency liable.
Park Sung-hoon, attorney at LKB Pisan representing Kim Soo Hyun, stated: "We welcome the court's commonsense judgment," and further noted, "Some advertisers have essentially adopted Kim Se-ui's arguments in their lawsuits, which itself causes significant pain to the victim. We hope that, through this ruling, those truly responsible will be held accountable."
In conclusion, the court held that compensation cannot be demanded from an innocent person, thereby establishing a clear precedent regarding damages claims. Although other proceedings involving additional companies have not yet been adjudicated, it is difficult to conceive that, under the present circumstances, any judge would find merit in companies’ claims for compensation based on publicly false accusations.