Kaelith

You keep going in circles, repeating the same argument simply because your narrative lacks any real substance.
Let’s be very direct: you are creating intentional confusion around legal terms. Every single concept you reference operates within a legal framework, including your preferred expression, "factually innocent." In law, "factual innocence" is a specific technical term used after a wrongful conviction has already occurred to challenge an incorrect verdict. https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/a/actual-innocence
Using clinical legal terms to describe a situation where no criminal complaint has ever been filed is a fundamental error in logic and speech.
You’re just moving the goalposts, inventing an absurd standard, and weaponizing the term “factually innocent” as a rhetorical trap by using a concept meant strictly for correcting wrongful court convictions to demand an absurd clearance from a legal process that never even existed.
Using “the lack of a finding of guilt” to question “the complete truth” is pure intellectual dishonesty and gaslighting. It makes no logical sense to expect an official verdict to disprove what could easily be nothing more than gossip or a lie. You are trapped in an absurd loop: blaming someone for not having a legal clearing for an inexistent case.
Your pseudo-academic messages are just failed attempts to move the discussion into a philosophical sphere about “absolute truth,” precisely to hide the fact that you cannot legally or logically contradict his innocence.

Dressing up the same narrative from multiple accounts won't turn a rumor into, a fact Because all your messages just shows a desperate attempt to manufacture doubt where there is none, which begs the question: what is your actual interest here?
Also, it is admirable how you are trying to sidestep the essence of the matter by pointing out a non-existent error you claim I assigned to your messages, even though a simple reading reveals that you are the one creating confusion, whether intentionally or not, between the terms that you yourself brought into the discussion.
The term 'innocent' is not even used by legal experts in judicial proceedings, so including it among legal terms is incorrect. As for the presumption of innocence, it is an old principle established to avoid judicial errors. This is why I told you that 'presumed innocent' is not a principle applicable to KSH's case, as there is no accusation.
Also, you are making a major logical error by completely misapplying the concept of "factual innocence" to the actual situation we are discussing. The concept of factual innocence applies when there is already a case, a formal charge, or a conviction, and it is later proven that the person is, in reality, completely unrelated to the crime. You are using this term backward. In this case, there is no criminal complaint, no investigation, and no formal accusation by the state. There is only public defamation in the total absence of any evidence.
You claim that "the absence of a criminal case does not automatically prove factual innocence." Actually, in the absence of any formal charge and any evidence, their status as an innocent person is absolute.
Pretending that a defamed person sits in a gray zone of "uncertainty" just because someone launched a lie in the public space means validating slander as a tool of truth.
You claim that because no court has ruled, "nobody knows what really happened," and therefore his innocence cannot be stated as a fact. This is a classic manipulation tactic. A court hasn't ruled because there is no criminal complaint and zero evidence to justify one. But, you are trying to spin the total absence of a case into a suspicious "lack of closure" just to keep the smear alive.
You turned a discussion about unfounded defamation into a theoretical essay on the technical nuances of criminal law. I did not do that. By shifting the discussion to the academic definition of factual innocence, you are trying to artificially create suspicion where nothing concrete exists.
The factual truth is simple: there is no criminal complaint, there is no evidence, there are only personal attacks. In any language and in any legal system, this is called slander, and its victim is, indisputably, innocent.

“Saying "Kim Soo Hyun is innocent" is your opinion, not an established fact. No court has ruled that he is legally innocent, and while recent investigations reportedly undermined key evidence against him, that is not the same as a judicial exoneration.

No court has found him guilty, but no court has issued a judgment declaring that every allegation was false either. Reported investigations have challenged key evidence behind some claims, but that is not the same as a court verdict.

The most accurate statement is: he is presumed innocent, and the allegations have not been proven. Saying "he is innocent" is an interpretation unless referring to the legal principle of innocence until proven guilty.
You stated multiple times that he is innocent, which is incorrect.
Again, the accurate statement is: he is legally presumed innocent and the claims have not been established. “

These are some of your previous statements, therefore, my responses were aimed at exactly what you stated.
You started by claiming that "No court has ruled that he is legally innocent... that is not the same as a judicial exoneration." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of law: courts prove guilt; they do not issue 'certificates of innocence.' When you realized this error, you immediately shifted the goalposts in your next comments, admitting that "the burden of proof is on the accuser", but immediately hiding behind a new distinction: "there is a huge difference between legal presumption of innocence and a Factual declaration of innocence." You are using legal concepts only when they suit you, and abandoning them when they don't.
Your argument peaks in absurdity when you state: "Many allegations concern behavior that may never result in criminal charges... The absence of a criminal case simply means no court has ruled on criminal guilt. It does not establish what actually happened."
By this dangerous logic, anyone could publicly accuse anyone of anything, and because it never goes to court, the victim could never be called "factually innocent." This is completely absurd. In a civilized world, unproven and discredited allegations are not "open factual questions", they are worthless gossip. The absence of a criminal case or a complaint does not leave a person in a state of permanent, lifelong suspicion just because you don’t want to believe "nothing happened."
Instead of sticking to pure logic, you repeatedly try to police my behavior and attack my state of mind. You claim that my arguments come across as "being emotionally invested" and tell me to "slow down... take a step back." You even try to dictate how I write, saying my argument would be stronger if I "consolidated my points instead of posting many separate comments." This is a transparent gaslighting technique designed to patronize me and make me look unstable, rather than actually answering my logic.
When you write that "no proven guilt is not the same thing as proven innocence," you are trying to force me to prove a negative. In reality, when allegations are not investigated and implicitly undermined, the discussion ends. The person is innocent. You are free to live in a world of unresolved suspicions and gossip, but you can’t present it as a valid argument.
You repeatedly hide behind the words "factual" and "factual innocence", but you are completely twisting their semantic meaning. Semantically, a fact is an objective reality that can be proven, measured, and verified. It is independent of opinions or beliefs. Yet, in the same breath, you state that "the allegations remain unresolved factual questions." This is a semantic contradiction. An unproven allegation or a rumor is, by definition, substantively subjective, not factual. By calling unresolved gossip a "factual question," you are trying to give the weight of a "fact" to something that has no evidence. You cannot use the word "factual" to describe a vacuum of proof.
So I'm not going around in circles, but trying to respond to similar messages of yours that you just reformulated, without bringing a new, correct idea or concept, so that I can come up with other arguments.

“However, the existence of allegations and public claims is not limited to criminal complaints. A person can face allegations about their conduct without a criminal case ever being filed. The absence of a criminal complaint means there is no criminal proceeding to determine guilt; it does not automatically prove that every disputed claim is false.”
By this statement, you are repeating precisely the point I addressed earlier: the mere existence of allegations and public statements cannot justify treating the person against whom those statements were made as guilty.
Although I do not wish to repeat what I have already written, I must do so because you are relying on the same argument. The absence of a criminal complaint demonstrates that the person making the allegations does not possess a genuine conviction that the alleged facts actually occurred, not merely that they might be unable to prove them.
Your assertion that "there is no criminal proceeding intended to determine guilt" is devoid of legal logic and does not support the position you seek to advance. On the contrary, it is a broad and misleading statement that creates the false impression that judicial proceedings are ineffective or unnecessary. Such reasoning promotes a dangerous premise for any society governed by the rule of law, as it undermines confidence in the judicial process and suggests that legal procedures serve no meaningful purpose.
Your further argument that a person “may choose not to file a criminal complaint, may lack sufficient evidence, may pursue other legal remedies, or may simply leave the matter unresolved” should not even be raised in the present discussion because it does not correspond to the circumstances of this case. Nevertheless, since you have introduced it, I will address each point individually.
If a person deliberately chooses not to file a criminal complaint, this indicates that there was no concrete factual basis that would justify such a complaint. If the person lacks sufficient evidence but genuinely knows that the alleged act occurred, the proper course is to file the complaint while identifying all available facts and indications that may assist the investigating authorities in establishing the truth through indirect evidence or by obtaining additional evidence during the investigation itself. If other legal remedies are available, then that choice should already have been reflected in the initiation of those proceedings. Finally, if a person simply chooses to leave the matter unresolved, then either that person does not genuinely believe that the alleged acts occurred, or is acting irresponsibly, because allowing such allegations to remain unresolved while publicly defaming another person on the basis of false evidence cannot be regarded as a legitimate course of action.
More importantly, if your position has always been that Kim Soo Hyun should not be considered guilty, then please explain your earlier reliance on the presumption of innocence. That principle applies specifically to individuals against whom there exists legal uncertainty arising from a formal criminal accusation materialized through criminal proceedings.
However, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you have reconsidered your position or that your earlier statements were imprecise. In that case, you should not accuse me of confusing legal concepts.
You also state that no one should be declared guilty in the absence of evidence. Could you explain more precisely what you mean by that? Before anyone can be declared guilty, or before the question of evidence even arises, there must first exist a genuine and concrete accusation capable of giving rise to criminal proceedings, whether or not a criminal complaint has ultimately been filed. It is impossible to discuss guilt or innocence where no accusation exists.
Once allegations are made, however, it is essential to distinguish between false defamatory statements and genuine allegations that, for whatever reason, have not resulted in a criminal complaint. If you are referring to the latter, then the existence of genuine facts necessarily presupposes the existence of evidence, does it not? Otherwise, those alleged facts amount to nothing more than speculation, false assertions, or mere gossip.
Finally, regarding your statement that the same standard should be applied in reverse, your reasoning is again inconsistent and unsupported. The absence of a concrete legal accusation, formulated by reference to the applicable criminal law, cannot give rise to any meaningful distinction between guilt and innocence. Where the discussion concerns conduct that, if true, would constitute a criminal offence, the absence of any criminal accusation categorically excludes criminal guilt. In such circumstances, the individual is fully entitled to state that he is innocent because he has never been accused of committing any criminal offence.
Rumours, sensational claims, and statements lacking any concrete factual basis cannot create a legitimate question of guilt or innocence. By themselves, they do not even constitute legal accusations; at most, they amount to defamatory statements based on the dissemination of false information.

What you are attempting to insinuate is precisely what Garosero claimed, and you are trying to manipulate public opinion by fostering a conflation of distinct terms. To be clear, there is absolutely no factual or legal confusion in my previous message. Throughout your prior remarks, you repeatedly referenced the presumption of innocence; however, from a legal standpoint, your argument is fundamentally flawed. Kim Soo Hyun has never been formally accused, nor has any criminal complaint been filed against him. Consequently, he has no need to invoke this principle which is strictly a matter of criminal procedure. If you have shifted your position following my last message, it does not mean that I am confused, but rather demonstrates that you are willing to employ any method to sustain an erroneous viewpoint. Therefore, you are the one actively creating confusion. On one hand, you state he was not accused, yet on the other, you claim the evidence cannot reliably establish the allegations. Allegations either exist or they do not. Everything stems from an official accusation, and the distinction between terms is critical. The distinction between formal criminal allegations and unproven statements is absolute. A mere assertion regarding an individual cannot automatically yield a formal criminal accusation. Therefore, it does not trigger the application of the presumption of innocence.
Unsubstantiated claims about individuals may constitute malicious statements, falsehoods, or deliberate character assassination, without placing the targeted individual in a position where their guilt or innocence must be legally weighed. Sensationalist gossip and falsehoods are highly prevalent because they drive views and generate revenue. Legally speaking, they possess zero probative value. A defamed individual cannot be deemed guilty for even a single moment based on false allegations; they do not require a court of law to declare them innocent because no formal charge was ever brought against them. It is legally absurd to await a judicial verdict to establish someone's innocence when that person has never been accused. The only correct statement is that he is inherently innocent; had there been any truth to these claims, the individuals making the defamatory statements would have been legally obligated to file a formal criminal complaint regarding the alleged offense.
The fact that the statute of limitations may have expired for certain offenses does not constitute a legal barrier to filing a criminal complaint. Even when criminal prosecution is time-barred, the underlying action can still substantiate civil liability for damages and establish factual culpability, despite the absence of criminal penalties. Consequently, invoking the statute of limitations as a justification for failing to file a criminal complaint is legally untenable.
Furthermore, if a legitimate suspicion exists, a complaint can be filed even in the absence of conclusive evidence at the outset. Even in cases where evidence is difficult to obtain, a criminal investigation initiated by the victim's formal complaint can uncover actionable elements that elevate a reasonable suspicion into a concrete criminal accusation. In this specific case, such an investigation would have easily materialized had the facts alleged by those discrediting him actually occurred.
Therefore, asserting that an individual is not innocent when no criminal complaint has been filed against them constitutes a legal wrong in itself, specifically, defamation through false assertions. Effectively, stating that a person cannot be deemed innocent implies that he is guilty of something. To assert that a person is guilty without any concrete, factual evidence is inherently defamatory and false. Anyone can make arbitrary claims about another individual, but such claims never support a legal conclusion of guilt. If no criminal complaint was ever filed against the individual targeted by these tendentious statements, it demonstrates that even the accusers themselves lack conviction in their own assertions.
Factually, the existence of any connection between the parties could have been easily verified by auditing the electronic devices used by the individuals involved, as digital data is never truly erased. This is merely one example of the forensic evidence upon which a valid criminal complaint could have been predicated.
The reality, however, is that none of the allegations made on that YouTube channel ever occurred. The defamed individual remains entirely innocent, and the factual elements you refer to cannot support even a reasonable suspicion, as they are completely non-existent.

Your message implies that a criminal complaint must actually exist against him to make the distinction you are referring to. If no criminal complaint has been filed against him, applying the presumption of innocence is unnecessary because he is naturally an innocent person.
The presumption of innocence is strictly a legal procedural rule designed to regulate the burden of proof within a criminal court, meaning it only activates when the state formally levies a charge against an individual. Outside of a legal accusation, the principle simply has no function because there is no prosecution or threat of state power to defend against. Therefore, a person who faces no criminal charges is innocent by default simply because no wrongdoing has been alleged, not because a courtroom rule is actively protecting them. In short, innocence is the natural state of a person in society, and the absence of an accusation is entirely sufficient to maintain it without relying on a legal mechanism.

In order for a person to be exonerated and declared not guilty by a court of law, that person must first be formally accused of committing a criminal offence. Only after criminal proceedings have been initiated does the procedural guarantee of the presumption of innocence become applicable, requiring that the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final judgment.
Kim Soo Hyun, however, was never formally accused of any criminal offence, nor was any criminal investigation or prosecution initiated against him. Instead, allegations of reprehensible conduct were disseminated through a YouTube channel without any official criminal proceedings. Rather than being the subject of a criminal case, he became the complainant, filing criminal complaints for defamation based on the dissemination of false information. The subsequent investigation confirmed the substance of those complaints.
Since no criminal complaint or criminal proceedings have ever been brought against Kim Soo Hyun, his legal status is not merely that of a person who benefits from the procedural presumption of innocence applicable to an accused person. Legally, he remains a person against whom no criminal liability has ever been alleged before the competent authorities. The legal framework governing the presumption of innocence is therefore not engaged because there is no criminal accusation to which it can attach.
The legal conclusion is straightforward: Kim Soo Hyun is not an accused person, has never been prosecuted, and has never stood trial. In the absence of any criminal proceedings against him, there is no legal basis to characterize him as anything other than an innocent person.

Kim Soo Hyun has every right to resume his professional activities while continuing to defend himself through the legal process. That is how the rule of law works.



We thank Attorney Kho and everyone who stepped up and worked to eliminate this evil from society.

[https://youtube.com/live/A8S0y1t_Bgc?is=CNytS1lLCe_y3GpP](https://youtube.com/live/A8S0y1t_Bgc?is=CNytS1lLCe_y3GpP)

One point deserves to be stated plainly: the theory that he simply "bought justice" after 16 months is not consistent with the sequence of events. No rational person with the financial means to prevent such a situation would choose to endure 16 months of harassment from a YouTuber, online trolls, and media scrutiny while their reputation was severely damaged, major endorsement contracts were canceled, and legal claims arose from those cancellations.

If KSH truly had the power to manipulate the outcome in that way, the logical time to do so would have been before the damage was done, not after it had already been done. You put out a fire before it burns down the house, not after the house has already turned to ashes.

In Kim Soo hyun case, there is no conviction and there is no criminal trial in which he is accused and required to prove his innocence. On the contrary, he has chosen to take legal action against those who made accusations against him.

Kim Soo Hyun is innocent because he has not been convicted or declared guilty by any court or competent authority. Without a ruling that establishes guilt, he cannot be considered guilty based only on accusations or opinions expressed in the public sphere.

When there are controversies regarding how evidence was presented, the destruction of materials, or the refusal to provide them to the authorities, these matters must be examined objectively, not conveniently ignored in order to support a conclusion that has already been reached.

It remains for justice to establish the truth, and for those who are guilty to be held accountable. It is time for online harassment to stop, and for those who make accusations without evidence to understand the responsibility that comes with their words.

I’m ending this discussion with you here. I have nothing more to add.

You are free to disagree with my interpretation, but disagreeing with me does not make my position invalid.

I maintain my position that Kim Soo Hyun should be considered innocent, because he has not been found guilty by any legal authority. The accusations made against him have not resulted in a conviction or an official finding of guilt. What exists publicly are accusations from online individuals, a YouTuber who, as far as it is known, has not been able to prove the claims made, and a family that has faced criticism due to issues such as the destruction of evidence and the refusal to provide the phone to the police. These are matters based on real events and not simply on stories created with falsehoods. Until there is a court ruling or verified evidence proving otherwise, Kim Soo Hyun is innocent.

I can respond to whichever point I choose as well; I am not here to be interrogated or to follow a line of discussion that you set. I addressed the issue I considered relevant, just as you chose to address mine.

I do not use other comments to avoid dispute; I am highlighting a clear difference in the standard applied. You chose to target my comment first and focus on correcting a reasonable opinion based on fairness and evidence. You also responded to two other comments to create the impression of balance, but it is clear that the comment in which I defended some basic principles bothered you more than those filled with personal attacks, hostility, and accusations presented as facts. Of course, you are free to respond to whichever comments you want, but it is reasonable to ask why an opinion based on principles was treated as the main problem, while much more aggressive and accusatory comments did not receive the same level of criticism.

What I find interesting is that my comment, which simply argues for fairness and evidence, was the one you felt the need to correct, while the comments filled with insults, personal attacks, and extreme accusations were left untouched. Why is a respectful opinion more problematic to you than comments that openly engage in verbal attacks?

A person cannot be treated as guilty simply because someone made an accusation