Sunny Day

The clock is ticking...

The fake aunt and the hyena vibe is unmistakable. But it's this stubbornness that kept the page alive.
By the way, I really like your new name.

In fact, the entertainment industry in S. Korea knew the truth, such a verdict was expected, so the multitude of offers is not a surprise.

@Nayonnaise The arguments presented in the analyzed text are grounded in a profound error of law and deliberately omit the fundamental mechanisms of the South Korean criminal procedure. The claim that the authorities' investigation did not resolve the underlying guilt or innocence is legally false and directly contradicted by the applicable legislation.
The allegations made in the public sphere concerned serious offenses involving abuse or illegal interactions with minors, matters imperatively regulated by the Child Welfare Act and the Korean Criminal Code.
Under the rules of criminal procedure, law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities have a statutory obligation to initiate an ex officio criminal investigation the moment there are reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Child Welfare Act.
The fact that the Judicial Police and the Prosecution Service never opened an investigation against actor Kim Soo-hyun constitutes absolute legal proof that the suspicions completely lacked factual substance or the essential elements of a criminal offense.
Also, your text erroneously claims that the investigation only targeted the fabrication of evidence, rather than the truth of the alleged relationship.
In reality, the moment the actor filed a criminal complaint for defamation, the procedural framework shifted radically. Pursuant to Article 307, Paragraph 2 and Article 309, Paragraph 2 of the Korean Criminal Code (concerning defamation via the dissemination of false facts to damage reputation), the primary subject of proof is the false nature of the statements published by the YouTuber, and made by the fake aunt and the family with their lawyer.
In order for investigative bodies to formally bring a charge of defamation via false information, the law requires them to verify and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the underlying claim made by the defendant did not exist in reality. Consequently, the conclusion of the investigation represents a total exoneration of the actor and an official, legal determination that the allegations were false.
The minimalist text attempts to downplay the entire procedure as a mere "suspicious police investigation." This framing blatantly contradicts Article 196 of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which establishes the hierarchical relationship and the judicial control of legality. The judicial police conduct their investigations under the strict coordination and direction of the Prosecution. The case did not stop at a simple police finding; it was formally validated by a prosecutor, who adopted the forensic evidence (including the manipulation of KakaoTalk messages and audio tampering using AI technology).
Furthermore, the deprivation of liberty of YouTuber Kim Se-ui was executed based on a pre-trial arrest warrant issued by a Judge of the competent Court. In South Korean law, issuing an arrest warrant for defamation is a measure of extreme severity. The Court grants such a warrant only if the evidence of the accused's guilt and the certainty of the false nature of their calumnies are indisputable. The fact that the judge dismissed the appeal filed by the YouTuber against the warrant confirms that the Court fully validated the legal reality: the allegations against the actor were a criminal fabrication.
Contrary to the insinuations in the text, which exploit the absence of a final judgment on the merits (a natural timeline gap in any legal system) to artificially sustain suspicion, the severance of the case (disjunction) ordered by the Prosecution carries a precise legal meaning. The severance was an expedited procedural measure driven by the severity of the disinformation and the social danger of the criminal act. The state isolated the clear, proven acts of disinformation to ensure the immediate detention and arrest of the offender, thereby protecting the integrity of the legal order.
From a strictly legal standpoint, the total absence of any ex officio investigation under the Child Welfare Act against Kim Soo-hyun, combined with the pre-trial detention of the accuser for violating Articles 307/309 of the Criminal Code (a measure directed by the Prosecution, sanctioned by the Court, and upheld on Appeal), demonstrates that the justice system has already established with authority the entirely false and fabricated nature of the underlying allegations.
Presenting a half-truth fundamentally entails a half-lie. Terefore, your theory becomes invalid as it completely omits the essential facts of the case.

From the beginning, it was clear that from a legal point of view, KSH could not lose. Other facts will come to light, which I hope will be made public, so that it can be established that the parents of the deceased were constantly exploiters of their daughter.

I really wait for fake auntie's verdict and then we can see if the hyena has lost his last tooth.

Dint*'s humorous lawsuit for damages
At the third hearing held on the 3rd July, the 22nd Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court confirmed the plaintiff, regarding the calculation of damages, plans for proof, and additional positions on the grounds for contract termination.
Dint* has not decided on what to base its claim for damages, on the breach of the obligation to preserve dignity (a clause in the contract) or on “serious reasons that make it difficult to perform the contract”. The difficulty is serious because if it remains on the breach of the obligation to preserve dignity, its claim will probably be rejected, since it is already obvious that all the public accusations made by Garo0&comp were false. If it relies on the impossibility of continuing the contract, it faces the task of directly proving the “actual amount of damages” suffered. Therefore, Dinto’s lawyer stated that he intends to present a written document showing the public perception at the time of the contract termination, the purpose of the model advertising contract and the impact on the advertising film and corporate image.
Furthermore, regarding Dint*’s claim of de facto "strict liability" on the part of Kim Soo-hyun’s side citing another clause, the court dismissed it, stating, "Since that clause also presupposes a clear cause of fault attributable to one party, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff’s claim."
Regarding the proof of damages, Kim Soo-hyun's side stated that they had already submitted the defendant's position in writing at the previous hearing in response to the court's request for clarification, and requested the plaintiff's side, which has not yet specified whether damages occurred and the basis for calculating the amount, to submit it promptly.
Kim Soo-hyun’s lawyers prepared a lot of documents to prove the biggest commercial farces lawsuit. Dint* didn't destroy the promotional displays. They kept the backbone of the actor's campaign intact on Japanese shelves and simply pasted a sticker of a new model over Kim Soo-hyun's face. And that’s not all, they continue to sell the products with his image and it’s hard to believe that they can send to the court evidence of the damages until September 4.
The next hearing date has been set for September 18 at 10:20 a.m.
https://www.frame-less.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=3782
https://asiaon.site/a-maquiagem-da-vitimizacao-da-dinto/

The latest reports in the prosecutors' indictment show that Garo0 intentionally committed the crimes, fabricating evidence to make the public believe there was a relationship between KSH and the deceased when she was a minor. Forensic analysis determined that the submitted audio recording is a fake, and the two people in the recording never actually had a conversation. Prosecutors also added a new charge to the indictment: blackmail.
For this reason, prosecutors sent him to court in custody, and his first appearance was scheduled for July 24. At Kim Se-ui's request, the hearing was postponed to August, most likely because he hired a new lawyer who needs time to study the file. In reality, however, the initial period he can be held in custody is 2 months. Prosecutors can request an extension of the arrest warrant by another 2 months, at most twice, meaning the maximum period he can spend in custody is 6 months.
In August, the first two months expire, and prosecutors must request an extension of the pre-trial detention. Apparently, Gasey*n wants to be released and hopes that an extension will not be requested or granted, most likely to prepare his defense in his own way, resorting to the same tricks he used in the past. It remains to be seen whether this is his strategy. In the meantime, the criminal case concerning the other suspects should move forward, because as I wrote before, an organized criminal group has been formed.
https://www.topstarnews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=16124907#_PA
https://n.news.naver.com/article/079/0004164829?sid=102
https://www.frame-less.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=3782

I have to agree with you!

Why doesn't the recording presented by Garo0 and the deceased's family matter, even though Gaseyon claims it hasn't been proven to have been made with AI?
A verbal statement made during a telephone conversation cannot, by itself, ordinarily serve as the sole basis for a criminal conviction. The South Korean criminal justice system applies the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and imposes strict requirements concerning the admissibility and evaluation of evidence, including audio recordings.
Even where a recording has been lawfully made by a participant in the conversation, an isolated verbal statement is generally not regarded as sufficient proof of criminal liability. Courts typically require that such statements be corroborated by additional evidence, such as electronic communications, financial records, location data, witness testimony, or other independent material evidence.
Accordingly, in the absence of corroborating evidence, a person would not normally be charged or convicted solely on the basis of a statement contained in a telephone recording. The presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to establish guilt through reliable and persuasive evidence, and an uncorroborated statement—particularly where the speaker is deceased and cannot be cross-examined—may carry limited evidentiary weight.
Without additional supporting evidence, such as documents, messages, financial transactions, forensic evidence, or witness testimony, a court is not required to accept as true the factual assertions made by the deceased speaker in the recording. An audio recording may demonstrate that specific words were spoken by a particular individual at a particular time, but it does not, by itself, establish the truth of the matters asserted. The speaker may have been mistaken, exaggerating, intentionally deceptive, or relying on inaccurate information.
Where a recording is made by a participant in the conversation, its creation is generally lawful under South Korean law. However, separate legal issues may arise if the recording is publicly disseminated, including through the media or social networking platforms, rather than being provided exclusively to investigative authorities. Depending on the circumstances, such dissemination may expose the individual to potential civil or criminal liability, including claims related to defamation.
As a practical matter, investigators and prosecutors may treat such a recording as a lead or starting point for an investigation. Nevertheless, if no independent evidence is obtained to substantiate the allegations contained in the recording, the recording alone would generally be unlikely to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required for a criminal conviction.

What about Ham So Won? She is married Chinese TV personality Qu Jiabao, who is 20 years younger than her.

If Kim Sa Ron wrote him a letter when he was in the military, are you saying that incriminates KSH? What is the logic?

He was falsely accused. The indisputable proof is Garo's arrest.

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.

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.

I have also posted this information, with some additional explanations

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

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.

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.

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.