Sunny Day

It is worth noting that Kim Soo-hyun’s legal team argued that, by the time Frombio filed its claim, it had already been established that the allegations made by Kim Sae-ron’s family and Garosero were false. This leads to a strategically sound conclusion: if Frombio truly believed it had suffered damages, it should have initiated legal action at the time the rumors first emerged, not after those rumors had already been proven false.
While Frombio has criticized Kim Soo-hyun and Golden Medalist for their response, its own reaction appears far from appropriate. Full credit must be given to Kim Soo-hyun’s lawyer, who effectively dismantled Frombio’s arguments using the very accusations advanced by Frombio itself.

Apparently, the court did not take Frombio’s statement into consideration either. From a professional standpoint, however, the public and PR response of Golden Medalist was clearly inadequate. The company failed to adopt the best strategy from the outset, and it appears that legal counsel may not have been consulted immediately.
If the situation has escalated to this point, Golden Medalist bears a responsibility. The company should have promptly filed criminal complaints, sought evidence preservation orders, and requested official expert examination of the materials presented by Gar0zero and the KSR’s family. At the same time, it should have publicly clarified that evidence substantiating the truth could not be disclosed due to legal restrictions, while demonstrating transparently the procedural steps being taken.
This is, of course, a personal opinion.

Yesterday, the Suwon District Court, 14th Civil Division, held the first hearing in the case involving Frombio and Kim Soo-hyun. At this stage, both parties restated and confirmed their respective positions.
The defendant (Kim Soo-hyun’s side) argued that, since the time of filing the complaint, there has been a growing public recognition that the allegations underlying the dispute are unfounded. Accordingly, the defense submitted that this evolution in public perception should be considered in the assessment of the case.
Conversely, the plaintiff (Frombio, the advertiser) emphasized that the core issue does not concern the existence of public controversy itself, but rather the manner in which Kim Soo-hyun’s side responded after the incident. The plaintiff maintained that this conduct constituted a breach of contractual obligations and should give rise to liability.
The court concluded the session by acknowledging both parties’ arguments and indicating the direction for further proceedings. Importantly, the court observed that the progress and outcome of the related criminal case concerning the “Gaseyeon allegations” could provide relevant context for the present dispute. Consequently, the court decided to continue the proceedings at the next hearing, pending developments in that matter.
This decision may be regarded as favorable to Kim Soo-hyun’s position, since it implies that the court considers the resolution of the Gaseyeon case significant in interpreting the contractual framework. Should it be established that the Gaseyeon allegations were false, this could support the conclusion that no contractual breach occurred. In effect, the contractual clauses would be construed in light of the proven facts: if the accusations are disproven, the court may determine that the contractual obligations were not violated.
https://m.blog.naver.com/fcupki58248/223977766338

To be precise, Kim Sae-ron did not borrow money from Kim Soo-hyun personally. The loan came from Golden Medalist, and therefore her debt is owed to the company, not to him as an individual. Accordingly, any repayment could not be claimed by Kim Soo-hyun in his individual capacity. Since the loan was made from the company’s funds, the debt can only be addressed in compliance with proper corporate and legal procedures. Otherwise, any informal cancellation or personal settlement could give rise to suspicions of misappropriation or embezzlement. As in Hwang Jung Eum's case ...

So true. Many believe that by remaining passive they are being neutral, but in reality, passivity only enables wrongdoing. Injustice may not touch you today, but none of us can know what tomorrow will bring.
As Martin Niemöller so powerfully reminded us: when we stay silent in the face of persecution, step by step, there will be no one left to defend us when our own turn comes. His words are not only a lesson from history but also a timeless warning, that silence in the face of injustice is complicity.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.
M. Niemöller

Yesterday, the 27th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Woo In-seong) sentenced former lawmaker Kang, indicted on charges of disseminating false information under the Public Official Election Act, to a fine of 10 million won. Representative Kim was sentenced to a fine of 7 million won.
In my view, the sanctions imposed are largely symbolic, although it is unclear what penalties were originally sought by the prosecution. The court held that certain information could not be definitively established as false, which may explain the relatively lenient fines. Nevertheless, such an outcome raises concerns, as it risks encouraging defamatory conduct rather than effectively deterring it.
By contrast, in another recent case, the Busan District Court’s Criminal Division 7 (Presiding Judge Shim Hak-sik) handed down prison sentences to YouTubers who had spread false information regarding the Jeju Air incident at Muan International Airport in December of last year. On February 20, the court sentenced Defendant A (age 60) to three years’ imprisonment and Defendant B (age 71) to one year’s imprisonment, finding them guilty under the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation).
As far as I am aware, Kim Soo-hyun has likewise lodged a complaint against Gaseye*n/Gar0zero under the Information and Communications Network Act. The precedent of the Busan case may therefore be relevant, as it demonstrates the courts’ willingness to impose custodial sentences in cases involving the deliberate spread of false information online.
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/469/0000882539?type=journalists
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20250820106300004?section=society/all
https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-society/2025/08/20/CMBJOQ7TQ5B2TLZPKPFDRJBOFA/

In my opinion, his fans did a better job than his PR department.

It won't affect Gar0zero.
The principle of applying the more favorable law to the offender, also known as the principle of retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, is recognized under Korean criminal law. According to the Korean Criminal Act, when a law is amended after the commission of a crime, the new law shall apply if it is more favorable to the offender. Conversely, if the new law is less favorable, the previous, more lenient version will continue to apply to the defendant.
Therefore, if the criminal defamation law in Korea is amended to impose harsher penalties—such as higher fines, longer prison terms, or a broader scope of punishable conduct—the new, stricter provisions will not apply retroactively to acts committed before the amendment.

And now, everyone understands why those who were in possession of the evidence, namely KSR’s family, somehow “lost it”, while Gar0zero remains “clean as a tear”, having merely presented what the grieving family handed over. A perfect setup. Dark comedy at its finest.

I believe that’s exactly what she thought. There was no point in trying to imply that KSH was guilty, and the existence of a defamation case alone proves nothing. It was clear that I would eventually clarify this. I simply thought I had explained it several times already, but perhaps I wasn’t clear enough or sufficiently understandable.

Correct!

Because someone wrote to me below that in Korea you can file a defamation complaint even if it is true, I would like to clarify two aspects of a defamation complaint. Art. 307 of the Korean Criminal Act has two paragraphs. The first one provides for the punishment for defamation, a case that applies even if the statements are true, and the second paragraph provides for the case where what is said is not true.
Art. 307 Criminal Act
(1) A person who defames another by publicly alleging facts shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding five million won.
(2) A person who defames another by publicly alleging false facts shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding ten million won
If the complaint is made under the first paragraph, the only evidence required is that a public statement was made about a person. In KSH's case, the broadcasts on the H0verlab YouTube channel were sufficient evidence.
If the complaint is based on paragraph 2, that false statements have been made, the person making such a complaint must prove that they are false. He must therefore show what the truth is by any means of evidence.
In this second situation, the evidence presented publicly is expertly examined to prove that it is false.
KSH requested forensic expertise on the evidence presented by Gar0zero and KSR's family, resulting in no doubt that his complaint is formulated on paragraph 2. This is what I kept trying to highlight and this made me have some confidence in KSH, the fact that he requested expertise on all the evidence, which means that he filed a complaint for defamation by spreading false information. That means he wants to prove that all evidence presented by Gar0zero and KSR family are false.
@dead lilies thank you for making me think that this clarification was necessary.

Thanks for the completion

yes, that's right. For the first case, he can receive a suspended sentence. However, since there are multiple cases for the same crime, it is likely that in at least one of them he will not receive a suspended sentence, but punishment by execution in prison. I expect this to happen in KSH's case because he had a prosecution ban that he violated, which shows that suspending the sentence no longer serves its intended purpose—that is, to correct his behavior.

Finally, the first measures are being taken by those who should have reacted from the beginning.
The Press Ethics Committee issues a warning to 25 media outlets for reporting on a bill that included Kim Soo-Hyun's real name
At its 997th meeting, the commission issued a unanimous "caution" decision to 25 media outlets for violating Article 10, "Principles of Titles," and Article 11, "Respect for Honor and Credit," of the Code of Newspaper Ethics.
https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1008167586&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSENDhttps://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1008167586

Max Barry said: “People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are.”
Some don’t even need a profile page, they reveal everything just by haunting other people’s pages, thinking it’s somehow still about them.
The real comedy? Watching someone play the critic… while refreshing an idol’s page more religiously than the fans.👇

I know very well that in Korea, you can file a defamation complaint even if the statements are true. If you read carefully, you'll see that I mentioned this. What makes the difference is that KSH filed a defamation complaint based on the spreading of false information. That's why he requested an expert analysis of the evidence presented by KSR's family. Otherwise, the evidence should not have been expertly examined.

He’s not easily brought down, but defaming the current president may prove to be his greatest mistake. Even his background may not protect him from the legal consequences he now faces.

Although I believe Kim Sae Ron’s family did not support her as they should have at the appropriate time, I do not wish for them to receive a criminal conviction. However, there is a real and significant possibility that they may face a harsher legal outcome than Kim Se-ui in the defamation case involving Kim Soo Hyun.
From the beginning, I pointed out that if the Gar0zero Institute financially benefited from this scandal and the accusations prove to be false, the party most legally exposed would be KSR’s family.
Under Korean law, publicly defaming someone using false evidence is punishable by imprisonment. While first-time offenders may receive a suspended sentence, which includes a probationary period and a criminal fine, the conditions of suspension require that the convicted person does not reoffend during that period.
Unlike Kim Se-ui, KSR’s family would be first-time offenders. However, what raises serious legal concerns is the criminal complaint they themselves filed against Kim Soo Hyun. It is difficult to comprehend how a legal professional could have advised them to pursue such an action, especially when the evidence (I'm referring to the recording made with AI) they relied upon originated from a third party and had not been independently verified for authenticity.
By filing that complaint, they effectively exposed themselves to a second, more serious legal consequence: the offense of false accusation under Article 156 of the Korean Criminal Act, which applies when someone knowingly files a criminal complaint without legal grounds, intending to cause another person to be punished. The fact that they sought a criminal conviction against Kim Soo Hyun makes the act even more severe in the eyes of the law.
If it is further proven that they used false evidence, or worse, tampered with or concealed evidence, thereby obstructing justice, the applicable penalties increase significantly. When considered together with the original defamation charges, the combination of offenses may result in a custodial sentence that cannot be suspended. Even if a suspended sentence were granted, the civil damages could be substantial and potentially beyond their financial capacity to satisfy, a burden no family should have to bear after losing their child.
Aligning themselves with Gar0zero may well have been their most damaging decision.

First the verdict, then his public… if they won’t have unsubscribed already.