@QueenCherry, you seem to think that writing "SUE ME" somehow makes you immune from legal consequences.…
First, you mistook a photograph of ME as a child in 1984 for evidence of pedophilia. Now you've decided I'd probably sell children to Hollywood predators. Quite the investigative career you're building. Have you considered presenting your findings to the FBI, or would they insist on that terribly inconvenient thing called evidence?
Here's something that should make your extraordinary imagination work overtime. That photograph was taken by a well-known photographer at the time and was exhibited at a photography exhibition in Paris in 1985, attended by approximately 500,000 people. So, according to your spectacularly defective logic, every single person who paid to visit that exhibition was a pedophile too? Half a million people? That's quite an ambitious accusation. Perhaps you should contact the French authorities and explain your discovery. I'm sure they'll be fascinated.
You previously screamed "SUE ME." Careful what you wish for. American courts have already given people making false accusations some rather expensive lessons. In 2022, blogger Tasha K was ordered to pay nearly $4 million after defaming Cardi B. In 2024, E. Jean Carroll secured an $83.3 million defamation verdict against Donald Trump. Apparently, freedom of speech isn't the magical immunity card you seem to imagine. And since you're so enthusiastic about litigation, you might want to familiarize yourself with Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan Martin and Stephen Shackelford of Susman Godfrey, two accomplished New York litigators I would consider consulting if I pursued legal action. Unlike the celebrity you're attacking, I'm a private individual. You've publicly associated me with pedophilia and child trafficking without a shred of evidence. I've preserved your comments, and I suggest you retract those accusations. Whether they constitute actionable defamation would ultimately depend on the applicable law and jurisdiction.
You wanted a lesson about the limits of free speech. I suggest learning the difference between an opinion and a potentially defamatory accusation before your next performance. And one last thing: you claim to care about protecting children, yet your first instinct upon seeing an innocent childhood photograph was to sexualize it. The photographer saw art. The exhibition visitors saw photography. You saw a conspiracy. Of everyone involved, you're the only person who managed to turn an innocent child's photograph into something disturbing. Perhaps that says considerably more about your imagination than you'd like the rest of us to know.
@QueenCherry, you seem to think that writing "SUE ME" somehow makes you immune from legal consequences.…
Congratulations, Sherlock. That “naked child” is ME in 1984. You've somehow managed to turn an innocent childhood photograph into evidence of your own spectacular inability to think. And wishing people would burn while pretending to protect children? What a breathtaking display of moral bankruptcy. At this point, the only thing you've successfully exposed is yourself.
In your previous comment, you imagined Kim Soo-hyun preying on financially vulnerable actresses. Now you are suggesting…
“Pure evil.” Again? Two words, zero evidence, and somehow still an intellectual overreach. The police investigated the allegations; you've apparently investigated your own feelings and mistaken the results for a verdict. Quite an achievement, making ignorance sound so confident.
He is a criminal with money. Rich always escape not because they are innocent.
So being “too good” is proof of evil? Fascinating. South Korean police investigated the allegations involving a minor and found insufficient evidence to refer him for prosecution. Meanwhile, your entire case rests on a feeling and a dramatic adjective. I'd suggest trying actual evidence, but I wouldn't want to ruin your impressive commitment to thinking as little as possible.
Thank you, again, Falhon, for this extensive contribution. You put in much time and effort to enlighten readers…
Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate them, especially knowing you've been following these discussions for so long. I'm glad my clarification helped, because I can certainly understand your confusion! The distinction is important: Kim Sae-ron's actual mother was referred to prosecutors, while another individual was accused of impersonating her aunt. Her father was not referred. It's remarkable how one incorrectly translated family relationship can completely change the meaning of a legal report. And once that mistake starts circulating, people end up debating something that never actually happened.
Regarding MDL, I wouldn't necessarily question the entire website's neutrality over this. From my previous discussions with its contributors, I've come to understand that many articles are essentially translations or summaries of Asian entertainment news, often prepared by community members rather than professional journalists conducting independent investigations. That's an important distinction readers aren't always aware of. I don't believe every mistake indicates an agenda. Sometimes an error is simply an error. But when you're reporting on criminal investigations, accuracy isn't optional, especially when a person's reputation is involved. MDL should absolutely correct this one. I've always considered MDL a useful place to discover dramas and follow entertainment news, but I would never treat it as the final authority on a legal case. That's why I return to the original Korean reporting whenever something doesn't add up. And that's precisely what concerns me about this controversy: a small mistake can travel halfway around the world before the correction has even put its shoes on.
Thank you again for your support. It's encouraging to know that taking the time to check the facts is helping others understand what's actually happening.
@Mephisto, How predictable. Another accusation without evidence. Do you actually have proof, or are we supposed to accept this one on faith too? I've noticed a rather amusing pattern: whenever someone runs out of arguments, suddenly my comments must be written by ChatGPT. Apparently, providing sources, citing legislation and constructing coherent sentences has become suspicious behaviour. What a fascinating standard of intellectual achievement.
Coming from someone who previously argued that lawyers don't have to stick to the truth or facts, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Here's a suggestion: instead of playing detective with my writing style, try finding something factually incorrect in what I've written. Quote it, challenge it, and provide evidence. I'll happily discuss it. Until then, accusing someone of using AI isn't the devastating comeback you seem to think it is. It's simply a rather public admission that you have nothing better to contribute. And judging by our previous exchanges, that does seem to be becoming a habit.
FUCK HIM & HIS COMPANY! SUE ME PEDO BYTCH, YOU CAN LIE TO THE PUBLIC BUT, YOU CANT LIE TO GOD NO MATTER HOW…
@QueenCherry, you seem to think that writing "SUE ME" somehow makes you immune from legal consequences. It doesn't. And invoking God doesn't turn an accusation into evidence. On July 29, 2026, South Korean police decided not to refer Kim Soo-hyun for prosecution over the Child Welfare Act allegations because the evidence was insufficient. Prosecutors subsequently left that decision intact in September. This was a legal investigation, not simply his agency denying allegations.
Under South Korea's Criminal Act, Article 311 addresses public insults, while Article 307(2) addresses defamation through knowingly false factual allegations. Whether those laws apply to any particular online comment depends on the circumstances and jurisdiction. You are entitled to dislike Kim Soo-hyun, criticize his agency, or refuse to watch his work. But calling someone a pedophile without established evidence is not legitimate criticism. If you believe he committed a crime, present credible evidence. Otherwise, shouting insults and demanding to be sued contributes nothing to the discussion. I would rather see justice based on evidence than on someone's anger or religious convictions.
https://m.blog.naver.com/PostList.naver?blogId=strongyoun-now&tab=1 Nice summary about all things that were…
Thank you, Ivy, for sharing these links and helping people stay informed. I appreciate the time and effort that goes into gathering and sharing reliable information, especially with a case as complicated as this one.
@Mephisto, I think you and YvonneSmith are overlooking an important distinction, although your latest statement about lawyers is particularly concerning. You wrote, "A lawyer does not have to stick to the truth or the facts." That is simply incorrect under South Korean law. Article 24(2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act explicitly prohibits attorneys from concealing the truth or making false statements while performing their professional duties. Article 26 establishes professional confidentiality, but confidentiality does not grant a lawyer permission to present false information publicly. A lawyer can represent a client whose allegations remain disputed. He can rely on testimony, submit evidence and challenge opposing arguments. He is not expected to personally perform forensic analysis on every recording or document. However, there is an important difference between defending a client's allegations and organizing public press conferences presenting contested material as established evidence. The fact that a client supplies something does not automatically make it true, and being a lawyer does not exempt someone from responsibility for their own public statements.
Now consider what actually happened. According to Korean reporting on October 26–27, attorney Bu Ji-seok was not originally included among the people Gold Medalist had complained against. Police initiated a separate investigation, and he was subsequently referred to prosecutors on suspicion of criminal defamation and spreading false information. Investigators reportedly identified manipulated KakaoTalk messages and fabricated audio material associated with the public accusations. This was not simply Gold Medalist deciding to sue another person because it disliked what he said. You asked who says the attorney knew the material was false. That is a legitimate legal question. Under Article 307(2) of the Korean Criminal Act, criminal defamation based on false factual allegations requires proof that the person knew those allegations were false. The Korean Supreme Court explicitly addressed that requirement in its October 22, 1999 judgment, case 99Do3213. Whether Bu Ji-seok possessed that knowledge, what he knew about the material's origins, and whether the prosecution can establish the relevant elements are matters for the legal proceedings. A police referral is not a conviction.
But there is something inconsistent about your position. In our earlier discussions, you wrote, "The evidence that he groomed an underage girl is real!" You also called Kim Soo-hyun a criminal and claimed that Kim Sae-ron's alcoholism resulted from his treatment of her. When challenged about your comments, you insisted you were entitled to your opinion. Yet now you are demanding proof of the attorney's knowledge before anyone questions his conduct. I agree that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. That includes the attorney. But it also includes Kim Soo-hyun, whose Child Welfare Act case was closed by police on July 29, 2026, for insufficient evidence, with prosecutors subsequently leaving the decision intact in September. You cannot treat allegations against one man as proven facts while dismissing investigative findings concerning another as nothing more than an agency conspiracy.
And @YvonneSmith, I agree with your general point about professional responsibility, but we should distinguish a suspected breach of legal duties from a proven criminal offence. The lawyer has been referred to prosecutors, not convicted. Also, the relevant jurisdiction here is South Korea, not China. Personally, I have no interest in defending an attorney if he knowingly spread fabricated material, nor in accusing him of doing so before that knowledge is established. I want the evidence examined and the law applied consistently.
Mephisto, you are absolutely entitled to dislike Kim Soo-hyun. But neither your dislike nor your assumption that Gold Medalist is "covering the remaining tracks" constitutes evidence. If you have proof of a cover-up, present it. Otherwise, stop presenting speculation as fact while demanding a standard of proof from everyone else that you have repeatedly refused to apply yourself.
KSH articles are great bait for mentally ill people to comment on here.
It's rather ironic to accuse others of being mentally ill or blind while offering absolutely nothing to support your own opinion. Since when did disagreeing with someone become a psychiatric diagnosis? I've been following Kim Soo-hyun's case for months, checking Korean sources, examining the available evidence, and distinguishing allegations from established facts. I'm perfectly willing to discuss different interpretations or correct something I've misunderstood, provided someone can actually support their argument.
What I find particularly disturbing is how casually people use mental illness as an insult. Mental health conditions are real, not convenient labels to throw at strangers on the internet. If you believe someone is wrong, explain why. Present evidence, challenge their reasoning, or correct their facts. But calling people mentally ill or blind doesn't prove anything about Kim Soo-hyun. It merely shows how little substance there is behind your comment.
Seungri, Lee Jin-wook ,Choi Jong-hoon or even SAMSUNG Ceo all got away with crimes or got smallest penalty possible.…
@SirKoki, @LOm2009 has already explained the legal differences between these cases in considerable detail, so I won't repeat that analysis. However, I do remember your earlier comments, particularly under the May 27, 2026 MDL article concerning the arrest warrant for Kim Se-ui, where you suggested that Kim Soo-hyun had maintained a relationship with a minor while waiting for her to turn eighteen. That was an allegation requiring evidence, not an established fact. Now you're comparing him with people who were convicted of crimes, received reduced sentences or benefited from a presidential pardon. But Kim Soo-hyun was never convicted of the alleged offences. On July 29, 2026, police closed the relevant Child Welfare Act investigation for insufficient evidence, and prosecutors subsequently left that decision intact without ordering further investigation. You may believe South Korea's justice system has serious flaws, and there are documented cases worth criticizing. But those failures do not establish that Kim Soo-hyun committed a crime or escaped punishment through privileged treatment. There is also a legal distinction worth remembering. Criticizing a country's justice system is legitimate expression. Publicly asserting that a particular person committed sexual offences or bribed officials without supporting evidence is different and can potentially raise defamation issues. South Korea's Information and Communications Network Act, Article 70(2), addresses the online dissemination of knowingly false facts with the purpose of disparagement. I have followed these MDL discussions since March 2025, and I remember the arguments made before the evidence changed. I am not asking you to admire Kim Soo-hyun. I am asking you to apply the same standards of evidence to him that you would expect in any other criminal case. A justice system does not become corrupt simply because its investigation fails to confirm an allegation you previously believed. Sources: Yonhap, July 29, 2026: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20260729008600315 The Korea Times, September 8, 2026: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/20260908/kim-soo-hyun-investigation-over-grooming-allegations-effectively-ends-as-police-decision-stands South Korean Information and Communications Network Act: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=203390
He is a criminal with money. Rich always escape not because they are innocent.
Wealth is neither proof of guilt nor proof of corruption. If you believe Kim Soo-hyun committed a crime or bribed officials, the burden is on you to provide credible evidence. Your personal conviction cannot replace a criminal investigation. I have also reported this comment to MDL, as I did your previous statements, and documented your repeated allegations. This creates a record of your conduct that could be relevant if legal proceedings are initiated, although MDL's own retention of reported comments is not guaranteed. You should also understand that repeatedly publishing false factual accusations can have legal consequences. South Korea's Information and Communications Network Act, Article 70(2), addresses online defamation involving knowingly false facts and an intent to disparage. Even anonymous users outside South Korea may potentially be identified through lawful procedures, including US federal court assistance under 28 U.S.C. §1782. Disliking an actor is your right. Publicly declaring him a criminal without substantiated evidence is an entirely different matter.
He is a evil dude with pretty face. Probably walking around schools to find young girls.
In your previous comment, you imagined Kim Soo-hyun preying on financially vulnerable actresses. Now you are suggesting that he walks around schools looking for young girls. Do you have evidence for either accusation, or are you simply inventing increasingly disturbing scenarios about someone you dislike? You have also called him a criminal who escapes justice because he has money. Yet on July 29, 2026, South Korean police decided not to refer the Child Welfare Act allegations against him for prosecution because of insufficient evidence. On October 26, additional individuals involved in the accusations were referred to prosecutors.
There is also something you should understand about anonymous online accusations. Being behind a username, or even living outside South Korea, does not necessarily make someone unreachable through legal proceedings. Under 28 U.S.C. §1782, American courts can authorize disclosure of identifying information for use in foreign litigation. This is not hypothetical: on November 24, 2025, a US federal court authorized HYBE, PLEDIS Entertainment and TWS member Han Zhen to seek identifying information about anonymous social-media users in connection with a Korean defamation lawsuit. Of course, US freedom-of-speech protections still apply, and not every offensive opinion constitutes actionable defamation. But repeated factual accusations of serious sexual misconduct can raise legal questions that go well beyond an entertainment website's moderation rules. I am not claiming that Gold Medalist has initiated proceedings against you. I am pointing out that if the agency or its lawyers decided to examine defamatory online statements, anonymity alone would not guarantee protection. If you genuinely care about vulnerable women and children, discuss real evidence and actual victims. Inventing allegations about an actor supposedly hunting for schoolgirls does nothing to protect anyone. I have reported your comment to MDL, and its wording and context have been documented. If Kim Soo-hyun or Gold Medalist decides to pursue legal action over defamatory online accusations, such statements could become relevant evidence.
He probably prey on weak people . May be those extra actresses who dont have money
@freespeech, what evidence do you have that Kim Soo-hyun preyed on financially vulnerable actresses? Can you identify even one alleged victim, a credible testimony, or an investigation supporting that accusation? This is not your only comment under this article. You also suggested that he walks around schools looking for young girls and declared that he is a criminal who escapes justice because he has money. These are serious accusations, yet you have provided no evidence for any of them. On July 29, 2026, South Korean police decided not to refer the Child Welfare Act allegations against him for prosecution because of insufficient evidence. On October 26, further individuals involved in circulating the accusations against him were referred to prosecutors, while Kim Se-ui had already been indicted. I have no problem with someone questioning a celebrity's conduct when there is genuine evidence. But inventing hypothetical victims and presenting imagined predatory behaviour as a reason to condemn someone is not protecting vulnerable women. It is spreading another unsupported allegation. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability for defamatory statements. Sources: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260729127851004 https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10915264
Defending someone against an unproven accusation is not defending pedophilia. That distinction should be obvious, yet you repeatedly ignore it in this discussion. You have already accused Kim Soo-hyun of being a pedophile, suggested that justice was bought, and personally attacked @My Way with accusations of defending child abusers. Now you are questioning another person's sexual interests simply because they disagree with you. None of this constitutes evidence. It is harassment disguised as moral outrage. On July 29, 2026, South Korean police decided not to refer the Child Welfare Act allegations against Kim Soo-hyun for prosecution because the evidence was insufficient. On October 26, the investigation into the accusations against him resulted in further referrals to prosecutors, including Kim Sae-ron's mother and the family's lawyer. Those referrals are not convictions, but they are developments you cannot simply ignore. I would defend an actual victim of child abuse without hesitation. I would also defend someone falsely accused of it. Those positions are entirely consistent because both depend on evidence rather than personal hostility. You have every right to dislike Kim Soo-hyun. You do not have the right to turn that dislike into proof of a crime or to accuse everyone who challenges you of being a pedophile. If you have verified evidence, present it. Otherwise, stop confusing disagreement with complicity in child abuse. Sources: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260729127851004 https://news.sbs.co.kr/english/article.do?news_id=N1008815434
if this agency spent this amount of money and effort on late KSR.in anycase personally, i cannot watch anything…
You're entirely free to decide which actors you want to watch. But I'm curious about your phrase, "knowing what I know." What exactly do you know, and have you reconsidered it in light of the investigation's findings since 2025?
Gold Medalist did provide financial assistance to Kim Sae-ron by covering substantial liabilities arising from her 2022 DUI. The company later recorded approximately ₩686 million as an unrecoverable debt. It also sent repayment notices in March 2024, which understandably became controversial. We can examine how those notices were handled without pretending that Kim Soo-hyun personally lent her the money or was responsible for her death. More importantly, on July 29, 2026, police closed the Child Welfare Act investigation against Kim Soo-hyun because there was insufficient evidence. The subsequent investigation into the material used to accuse him has led to Kim Se-ui's indictment and the referral of several other individuals, including Kim Sae-ron's mother and the family's lawyer, to prosecutors. I believe Kim Sae-ron deserved more support and protection throughout her life. But why should that concern turn into a permanent judgment against Kim Soo-hyun, particularly when the evidence originally used against him has been seriously challenged? You don't have to like him or watch his dramas. I only ask that you distinguish what you personally feel from what the evidence actually establishes. That distinction matters for both actors. Sources: https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20250314005900315 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20260729008600315 https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10915264
When the Evidence Changes, the Accusations Remain: Kim Soo-hyun, MDL and Eighteen Months of Public Judgment
This time reporting that several individuals involved in the accusations against him had been referred to prosecutors. The article reproduces Gold Medalist's official statement through MyDaily rather than presenting an independent investigation. There is already a significant translation error: the English version refers to individuals impersonating Kim Sae-ron's mother and aunt, whereas the original Korean identifies Kim Sae-ron's actual mother and a person accused of impersonating her aunt. This distinction matters because the mother herself is among those referred, while her father received a police non-referral decision. When an article reproduces an official legal statement, accurately identifying the people involved is the minimum editorial responsibility. It is especially important on a website where readers have spent eighteen months arguing over evidence, criminal accusations and the reputations of both a living actor and a deceased actress.
The October 26 announcement marks a substantial development in a case that began publicly in March 2025. Kim Se-ui, the operator of Garo Sero Research Institute, had already been detained and indicted in June 2026. Gold Medalist subsequently announced that police had referred Kim Sae-ron's mother, the woman presented as her aunt, family lawyer Bu Ji-seok and YouTuber Kwon Young-chan to prosecutors following investigations involving alleged false-information defamation, distribution of private material and attempted coercion. The accusations and applicable offences are not identical for every individual. Police also investigated some participants independently of the original complaints. These referrals are important, but they are not convictions, just as a prosecutor's decision to proceed would not establish guilt before a court judgment. I insist on this distinction because the same legal precision was repeatedly missing when Kim Soo-hyun himself was being publicly accused.
What the latest article fails to place in context is the investigative history preceding this announcement. On July 29, 2026, Seoul Seongdong Police decided not to refer the Child Welfare Act allegations against Kim Soo-hyun for prosecution because the evidence was insufficient. In September, prosecutors left that decision intact without ordering a supplementary or renewed investigation. On October 13, Dispatch reported findings from police examinations of Kim Sae-ron's devices and cloud records indicating that the disputed 2016 KakaoTalk conversation presented as involving Kim Soo-hyun actually involved another celebrity. The report also described testimony alleging that Kim Se-ui instructed a staff member to replace an unidentified sender's label with Kim Soo-hyun's name. The attribution and alleged alteration are significant investigative findings, although the criminal responsibility of those involved must still be determined by the courts. These developments directly undermine evidence that was once circulated as proof of an underage relationship.
This is why the latest comment section cannot be understood in isolation. We have already witnessed similar arguments under MDL's March 13, 2025 article, Kim Soo Hyun's agency to address actor's relationship controversy with the late Kim Sae Ron, the March 17 article, Kim Sae Ron was completely ostracized, claim family representatives, the March 31 article covering Kim Soo-hyun's press conference, the May 7 article about the family's purported evidence, and the August 10, 2026 article about his return to television. The same usernames, allegations and rhetorical strategies reappear, sometimes without acknowledging that the evidence has changed. I have retained earlier comments, so these are not impressions based on a single heated discussion. They are identifiable statements made under identifiable articles.
Mephisto is one example. Under the March 13, 2025 article, this commenter questioned whether a publicly circulated letter could be fake. Under the August 10, 2026 comeback article, Mephisto insisted that evidence of grooming was real and argued that investigators had focused on AI audio while overlooking letters. In the current article, the argument has shifted to defending the family's lawyer, with Mephisto asserting that an attorney does not have to adhere to truth or facts. That last claim is particularly troubling because Article 24(2) of South Korea's Attorney-at-Law Act explicitly prohibits lawyers from concealing the truth or making false statements in the performance of their duties. This does not automatically prove that Bu Ji-seok knowingly used fabricated evidence, but his professional obligations cannot simply be dismissed. The issue is whether he knew, or otherwise unlawfully participated in presenting, false material. A lawyer's duty to defend a client is not permission to knowingly manufacture or misrepresent evidence. Mephisto's recurring criticism of Kim Soo-hyun is a personal position; the assertion about what the law allows is a factual question, and the statute provides the answer.
SirKoki also has a documented history in these discussions. Under the May 27, 2026 article, (Kim Soo Hyun comeback possibility rises as court issues arrest warrant for Kim Se Ui), SirKoki advanced the argument that a man in his thirties had remained close to an underage girl while waiting until she turned eighteen. That was precisely the allegation requiring evidence, not a fact established by photographs or public familiarity. In August, under the comeback article, SirKoki compared Kim Soo-hyun's situation with Seo Ye-ji's career. In the present discussion, the comparison shifts towards Seungri, Choi Jong-hoon, Lee Jin-wook and Samsung chairman Lee Jae-yong. Yet those cases have fundamentally different judicial histories. Seungri and Choi Jong-hoon received criminal convictions; Lee Jae-yong's bribery conviction and subsequent pardon are matters of record; Lee Jin-wook was not convicted of the sexual-assault allegation against him. Kim Soo-hyun's alleged underage relationship did not produce a criminal conviction, a sentence subsequently reduced or a presidential pardon. Criticism of the Korean justice system can be legitimate, but combining unrelated cases does not establish that another actor escaped punishment for an unproven offence.
Daldajang illustrates a different problem: the continued reinterpretation of evidence to preserve earlier suspicions. Under the March 17, 2025 article, Daldajang praised the family's strategy as direct, calm and effective, arguing that they wanted an admission and apology rather than a large financial settlement. The same discussion also contained speculation about manipulation, financial pressure and misconduct by Gold Medalist. Under the May 7 article, Daldajang defended the woman described as the aunt and circulated accusations about Kim Soo-hyun's alleged behaviour towards minors. By August 10, the position had become that his innocence had never been adjudicated and that the public could still consider him guilty regardless of the judicial process. That distinction between legal judgment and personal opinion is legitimate, but it cannot transform conjecture into verified conduct. Daldajang's latest comment about a corrupt government and K-drama plots is plainly sarcastic; treating it as a literal confession of belief in a conspiracy would be unfair. Nevertheless, the earlier assertions remain part of the discussion's history. When evidence changes, an intellectually consistent position requires reconsidering claims that depended upon the disputed material, not merely moving to another allegation.
The newest participants demonstrate that the problem has not disappeared. Freespeech speculates that Kim Soo-hyun targets financially vulnerable actresses and walks around schools looking for young girls, later calling him a criminal protected by money. Harpy14789 similarly calls him a criminal despite the lack of a criminal conviction supporting that accusation. Andj123 repeatedly uses accusations of pedophilia against the actor and against other commenters who defend him, while also resorting to personal and sexual insults. These are not investigative arguments. They are statements about supposed criminal behaviour for which the commenters provide no verified evidence. There is a difference between saying that one does not wish to watch an actor and alleging that he targets children. Personal dislike requires no proof; serious accusations against a real person do.
The exchanges involving Andj123, mrrrr1 and Chen Lu also expose confusion about South Korean criminal law. The historical age-of-consent provisions were changed in 2020. Before that reform, Article 305 of the Criminal Act addressed sexual conduct involving children under thirteen; the amendment introduced Article 305(2), extending the provision to thirteen-to-fifteen-year-olds where the other person was at least nineteen. Article 13(1) of the South Korean Constitution prohibits retroactively imposing criminal liability for conduct that was not criminal when committed. Chen Lu is therefore right to distinguish historical legislation from today's law. However, claiming that prosecution for every possible form of sexual abuse before 2020 would have been impossible goes too far, because other criminal provisions existed. More importantly, an argument about the applicable law does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred. Mrrrr1's invocation of beheading and subsequent sexual abuse directed at another commenter is equally unacceptable. Nobody needs to defend Kim Soo-hyun by normalizing threats, execution fantasies or harassment.
Fing-mad presents the theory that bribing institutions could be less expensive than facing advertising-contract penalties. That is an economic hypothesis without supporting evidence of corruption. Kim Soo-hyun is a successful actor, but his celebrity status does not establish control over police officers, prosecutors, forensic investigators and judges. The immediate advertising losses, disrupted projects and interruption to his professional activities are documented. Meanwhile, the police's examination of devices, the identification of another sender in the disputed messages and the referrals of additional suspects provide specific investigative developments that critics must address. If someone believes an official was bribed, the relevant questions are who received money, when, from whom and in exchange for which action. Without that evidence, calling every unfavourable finding corrupt is not scrutiny of the justice system; it is a way of making an accusation impossible to disprove.
LucyL's position deserves examination because it has evolved in a revealing way. Under the May 7, 2025 article about the family's alleged evidence, LucyL argued that MDL had transformed from a drama-discussion website into a tabloid. Under the August 10, 2026 comeback article, LucyL criticized the contributor responsible for recycled articles as a copy-and-paste writer and argued that MDL should prioritize other entertainment news. Now, in the October 26 article, LucyL demands an end to coverage because prosecutions are supposedly unrelated to Kim Soo-hyun's productions and are disrespectful to Kim Sae-ron's memory. I share the criticism of careless, sensationalist republishing, but the solution cannot be to stop reporting precisely when the allegations are undergoing serious evidentiary examination. MDL published extensively while Kim Soo-hyun's career was being damaged. Its readers deserve the outcome of the investigations with at least the same visibility. Respect for Kim Sae-ron's memory requires accurate reporting, not leaving the earlier public narrative uncorrected.
Beatrix0304, by contrast, acknowledges limited knowledge of the case and encourages people to leave judicial decisions to professionals. That is a more responsible position than pretending personal suspicion amounts to proof. A police non-referral does not turn Kim Soo-hyun into a saint, and I have never argued that it should. It means the authorities did not find sufficient evidence to pursue the specified allegations. Similarly, a referral of Kim Sae-ron's mother or lawyer does not establish their guilt. There is no contradiction in defending an actor from unsupported criminal accusations while insisting that every suspect receives due process. Horangae_'s demand for justice for Kim Sae-ron deserves the same consideration. Her death and the circumstances of her life are legitimate subjects of concern. But justice for her cannot be defined in advance as punishing Kim Soo-hyun, regardless of what investigators find. Any wrongdoing concerning her finances, privacy, professional treatment or personal relationships should be investigated on its own evidence.
The financial question remains important, but several comments are presenting suspicions as proven motives. LOm2009 refers to a purported agreement awarding the family's lawyer a 20% success fee and interprets this as evidence of an intended financial extraction from Kim Soo-hyun. I have not found independently authenticated documentation establishing the contract's complete terms or the proposed basis for payment. Even if an agreement existed, its wording and context would matter before identifying an unlawful purpose. There is, however, a separate and documented financial history deserving attention. Kim Sae-ron's own legal representatives told the court in 2023 that her earnings had supported family businesses and household expenses. Subsequent reporting from her father's bankruptcy records described a substantial loan originating in November 2014, when Kim Sae-ron was only fourteen. Gold Medalist separately acknowledged a remaining corporate receivable of approximately ₩686 million arising after her DUI and the repayment notices sent in March 2024. These facts justify investigating who controlled her earnings as a minor, what happened to the money and whether her family was financially dependent on her. They do not yet prove that her relatives organized the accusations against Kim Soo-hyun for financial gain.
The woman described as Kim Sae-ron's aunt is also more complicated than the label suggests. In March 2025, Kim Sae-ron's mother publicly acknowledged that the woman was not a biological relative. She described her as the mother of another child actor whom the family had known for approximately twenty years, someone who assisted with childcare and managerial matters and was authorized to communicate on the family's behalf. Therefore, the absence of a blood relationship was not itself a concealed discovery made in October 2026. The questions are what this woman said publicly, what she knew about the evidence, whether she knowingly participated in false statements and whether her longstanding managerial role can be independently documented. The new police referral makes those questions more urgent; it does not prove that she controlled Kim Sae-ron's childhood finances or participated in every decision made by the family.
Supporters of Kim Soo-hyun should be held to the same factual standards as his critics. My Way has repeatedly argued against unsubstantiated allegations, including in the October 14, 2026 article, (Kim Soo Hyun's agency seeks to close the chapter on late Kim Sae Ron controversy). Yet this has frequently been accompanied by insults, accusations that other commenters operate multiple accounts and categorical judgments about Kim Sae-ron's relatives' financial motives. In the current discussion, My Way again describes the family as greedy and treats imprisonment as inevitable. Happy Bird's earlier comments under the October 14 article similarly combined legitimate demands for accountability with language treating disputed responsibility as already decided. The anger is understandable given the damage caused by these allegations, but it is not necessary to presume a future conviction or assert financial motives without proof to defend Kim Soo-hyun. The same applies to claims that other commenters must be secretly paid, coordinated or operating multiple identities. Such allegations require evidence too.
Etoks21 illustrates why I reject the idea that only one side is responsible for the hostility on MDL. In the March 13, 2025 article, this user criticized MDL for promoting unproven accusations and potentially contributing to celebrity harassment. That concern was legitimate. Yet under the March 31, 2025 article and repeatedly in the August 10, 2026 comeback discussion, the same account directed demeaning remarks at other users, invoked Korean celebrity suicides as insults and repeatedly used hostile generalizations about Korean netizens. The latest comments continue that pattern. Someone can defend Kim Soo-hyun's right to fair treatment without ridiculing suicide, abusing other users or treating nationality as an insult. The moderation rules displayed above the current MDL discussion should apply regardless of whether a commenter supports or opposes the actor.
There is an underlying editorial issue here that goes beyond individual arguments. Lily Alice is an umbrella name for credited MDL contributors, but a translated or condensed report is not an independently investigated news article. We have previously discussed how MDL contributors reproduce Asian entertainment reporting for international readers, sometimes without adding sufficient background or checking the implications of the wording. That distinction matters because readers often treat the English article as an authoritative account of what happened, even when it is a shortened adaptation of another publication. In this case, a basic translation error changes the identity of a referred suspect. An editorial correction should not be difficult: compare the English sentence with the original Korean, correct it, and preserve the distinction between the agency's statement, police investigative decisions and future prosecutorial or judicial findings. The more serious question is why the platform's earlier coverage was not systematically revisited after the evidence changed.
I also recognize that not every supportive comment is problematic. Kdramachic has consistently argued that subsequent investigative developments deserve attention, including under the August 10 and October 14 articles. Lamia's current comment raises a legitimate broader concern about celebrities targeted by cyberwreckers and manipulated digital material. Even Happy Bird's demand for accountability addresses a real issue when separated from premature judgments. The public should be able to discuss how online allegations affect an entertainer's livelihood, how digital evidence should be authenticated and how journalists distinguish legitimate investigation from reputational attacks. What undermines those discussions is not disagreement but the continued presentation of allegations, suspicions and personal animosity as established facts.
I do not expect every reader to become a Kim Soo-hyun supporter. I do expect those who publicly accused him of grooming, child abuse, bribery or causing Kim Sae-ron's death to revisit their statements in light of the July police decision, the September prosecutorial review and the October forensic reporting. I also expect those defending him to acknowledge that ongoing referrals and indictments are not convictions. The facts do not change according to which person we want to protect. If a statement was wrong in March 2025, repeating it in November 2026 does not make it true. And if a new legal development contradicts an earlier allegation, ignoring that development is not intellectual independence.
The central responsibility now belongs as much to publishers as to commenters. MDL helped circulate the original accusations to an international audience. It should therefore correct translation errors, provide the missing investigative context, update earlier articles where material claims have been undermined and enforce its own rules against harassment consistently. Kim Sae-ron's death deserves a serious examination of her life, including her financial difficulties and the people who influenced her circumstances. Kim Soo-hyun deserves an equally serious examination of the allegations against him, without being treated as guilty because of a rumour or innocent merely because of his fame. I have followed this case long enough to remember what was said, by whom and under which article. That history matters because accountability is not simply demanding a verdict from the courts. It also means being prepared to correct the public record when the evidence no longer supports what we once believed.
Disagreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to insult, mock or harass them. If you see personal attacks against other users, please report them to MDL instead of responding with more insults. The same applies to people repeatedly calling someone a "groomer", "pedophile" or "criminal" without substantiated evidence, especially when official investigations and newer findings have challenged those accusations.
Freedom of speech is not a free pass for harassment or defamatory allegations. US law protects free expression, but it does not provide blanket immunity for false statements of fact that unlawfully damage someone's reputation. MDL's own community guidelines also prohibit personal attacks and harassment, regardless of which side someone supports. Please report these comments rather than allowing bullying and misinformation to dominate the discussion. The rules apply to everyone.
Part 2 - Before addressing individual comments, I want to make something clear: this is not a personal attack against anyone mentioned here, nor an invitation to harass or target other users. I respect everyone's right to disagree, criticize an actor or express a personal opinion. My responses concern publicly posted statements and factual allegations, not the people behind the accounts. I have reviewed and archived previous discussions to ensure that comments are represented accurately and in context, including my own earlier replies. Where I disagree, I explain why and refer to the available evidence. I do not question anyone's personal worth, identity or right to participate in this discussion. I simply believe that serious accusations deserve serious scrutiny, and that the same standards of accuracy, respect and accountability should apply to everyone, including myself.
I have read the comments under this article. Several users have been commenting about Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron since March 2025, and some have repeated the same accusations dozens of times, even after the original evidence was questioned by investigators. I have already responded to many of those arguments, sometimes with detailed chronological research, Korean legal sources and financial records. The question now is not simply what people believed eighteen months ago, but whether those beliefs still fit the evidence available in October 2026.
@QueenCherry, your latest comment is a perfect example of why this discussion has gone so far beyond legitimate criticism. You wrote, "SUE ME PEDO BYTCH," while accusing Kim Soo-hyun of lying and declaring that he deserves eternal punishment. You are entitled to dislike him, his company or his work. Your religious beliefs are also your own. But publicly calling someone a pedophile is a serious factual accusation, not simply an expression of anger. The alleged underage relationship was investigated, and police found insufficient evidence to refer the Child Welfare Act case for prosecution. If you believe you possess evidence establishing otherwise, present it through the appropriate channels. I have preserved your comment alongside the earlier discussions, because people should understand that publicly making such accusations can carry legal consequences. Challenging someone to sue you does not make an otherwise unlawful statement immune from scrutiny.
@JulySnow2, you have been particularly active since the March 13, 2025 article. You accused Kim Soo-hyun of dating a minor for years, described him as a pedophile, encouraged people to boycott his projects and repeatedly presented past interviews, friendships and rumours as evidence of his alleged character. In the May 27, 2026 discussion, you specifically claimed he had isolated Kim Sae-ron by bringing her into Gold Medalist, depriving her of financial independence and abusing her financially. Now you say accountability cannot simply be forgotten and that he should retire because he is approaching 40. You are entitled to believe younger actors are more interesting, but that does not address the allegations you previously made. Where is the evidence of financial isolation, especially given her documented debts, other relationships and the fact that Gold Medalist was the corporate creditor? Where is the evidence of grooming, particularly after investigators reportedly identified another celebrity as the sender of the disputed 2016 messages? A comment about his age does not resolve those questions.
@Lmorgan0220, in the March 26, 2025 discussion you claimed Kim Soo-hyun groomed Kim Sae-ron, damaged her psychologically and probably contributed to her drinking, DUI and eventual death. In this article, you continue referring to her as a grooming victim, express concern about another possible victim and suggest his wealth could have bought the investigation's outcome. That is a series of increasingly serious accusations, yet I have not seen evidence establishing those causal claims, another victim or a corrupt payment. The police investigation concluded without referral for the alleged Child Welfare Act violation. Prosecutors subsequently indicted Kim Se-ui over allegedly false or distorted material. And Dispatch now reports forensic findings identifying another man in the central 2016 conversation. None of that can simply be dismissed by saying a wealthy actor must have bought the result.
@Daldajang, we have already discussed the difference between a police non-referral and a court acquittal, and I have acknowledged that your insistence on correct legal terminology was justified. You also previously raised much more serious theories about grooming, agency manipulation, Gold Medalist's financial conduct and even the suggestion that Kim Soo-hyun displaying a watch was a warning connected to Kim Sae-ron's death. That last interpretation was extraordinarily speculative. In this article, however, your argument is more limited: his past commercial achievements do not guarantee that "Knock-Off" or another future production will succeed. I agree with that. A future commercial performance must be measured when the production is released. But that reasonable point does not establish your earlier allegations, nor should the new forensic evidence be ignored simply because you remain sceptical of him.
@Mephisto, you have repeatedly appeared in these discussions. In May 2026, you called Kim Soo-hyun a criminal. In the August 2026 article, you insisted that the evidence of grooming an underage girl was real and accused others of focusing on the disputed AI recording while ignoring the military letters. You also claimed that his treatment of Kim Sae-ron contributed to her alcoholism. Now you say you hope karma catches up with him and that you will not watch his work. Nobody can force you to watch an actor you dislike. But your earlier factual accusations remain unanswered. A military letter is not automatically evidence of grooming, and the October forensic reporting makes the original claims concerning the 2016 messages even more problematic.
@ShadowOzzy, your comments on the March 31, 2025 press conference already described Kim Soo-hyun's crying as a performance and connected him to allegations involving Sulli and the film "Real". Now you suggest burner phones, claim he personally lent Kim Sae-ron the money and forced repayment, and treat her death being discovered on his birthday as proof of his guilt. Those are not established facts. The documented creditor was Gold Medalist. The company explained the approximately ₩700 million balance and the accounting process in its March 2025 statement. Investigators reportedly examined several telephones and recovered extensive communications. Inventing another unidentified device does not invalidate that investigation. Nor does a date establish someone's intention or another person's responsibility for a death.
@Key, you were already describing Kim Sae-ron as his victim in March 2025 and treating his press conference as evidence of an objectionable personality. By August, you wanted fewer articles about him. Now you argue that no sensible agency or advertiser would consider him commercially viable. Public relations and profitability are legitimate business questions, but predictions are not findings. His August return on Indonesian television, September appearance at The Fact Music Awards and Gold Medalist's victory in the Mido advertising dispute demonstrate that his professional situation cannot be summarized as every company permanently abandoning him. Equally, his past successes do not guarantee that his next drama will be profitable. We should judge actual commercial results rather than imaginary ones.
@MadyHammad, in March 2025 you wrote that Kim Soo-hyun was entirely responsible for Kim Sae-ron's death and childhood trauma. Your current comment simply says the damage cannot be undone. Reputational damage certainly can persist, but your original accusation was far more serious than a comment about public perception. What evidence established responsibility for her death? Have the subsequent investigation, reported forensic findings or accounts from people involved in her later life changed that conclusion at all?
@Seeking Joy, in March 2025 you described Kim Soo-hyun's complaints against Kim Se-ui and Kim Sae-ron's family as retaliation against people reporting injustice. You also raised the idea that powerful people could buy favourable legal outcomes. You now intend to boycott everything associated with Gold Medalist, including productions involving other artists, and you cite Lee El as an example of someone who supported Kim Sae-ron. Your commercial choices are yours, but the underlying argument requires updating. Investigators subsequently examined the material, prosecutors brought charges and Dispatch reported that the purported 2016 conversations with Kim Soo-hyun actually involved another celebrity. Lee El's March 2025 statement raised concerns about attitudes towards women, but contemporary reporting did not establish that she was giving direct testimony against Kim Soo-hyun. We should distinguish public criticism of the entertainment industry from evidence about this case.
@SirKoki, in May 2026 you questioned why a man around 30 would know a younger girl and supposedly wait for her to turn 18. In August, you compared Kim Soo-hyun's treatment with Seo Ye-ji's. Now you suggest his supporters are displaying hybristophilia, an attraction towards people who commit crimes. That description presupposes that his supporters are attracted to someone whose criminal conduct is established. But the underage allegation was investigated and not substantiated. And concerning Seo Ye-ji, Gold Medalist renewed her contract in December 2021, after the controversy involving her former boyfriend, and their relationship continued until November 2023. She was not immediately dismissed, as some people here have claimed.
@Lili, I agree that South Korea's entertainment industry deserves scrutiny for its treatment of female artists and the intense bullying Kim Sae-ron suffered. But your statement that Seo Ye-ji's agency contract ended shortly after her 2021 controversy contradicts the documented chronology. Gold Medalist renewed her contract in December 2021 and represented her during her return in "Eve" in 2022. You also say Kim Soo-hyun volunteered to pay Kim Sae-ron's debts and then abandoned her. The financial record instead concerns approximately ₩700 million remaining on the books of Gold Medalist, not a personal loan from Kim Soo-hyun. You can believe the agency should have offered more support without rewriting the contractual facts or announcing that its actions caused her death. https://www.hankookilbo.com/news/article/A2021123016170004436 https://www.mk.co.kr/news/hot-issues/10887059
@Iri, you say that a relationship can be legal and still morally unacceptable. I agree with that principle. Nobody has to approve of the age difference. But the distinction matters because the allegation here was not simply that an older adult dated a younger adult. It was that Kim Soo-hyun groomed or sexually exploited Kim Sae-ron as a child. I have experienced grooming myself, and I know why its psychological mechanisms must be examined seriously. An age gap, a friendship, a military letter or an adult relationship does not automatically establish the deliberate process of manipulation and dependency involved. I have searched the chronology for evidence of that process, and the investigation did not substantiate the alleged offence.
@MaiGrande-Wang, you explicitly state that he groomed her and waited until she turned 18. @UnniSara, you say he manipulated her into joining his agency, which supposedly caused her financial collapse. Those are not simply expressions of discomfort about an age gap. They are factual allegations about particular actions. Where is the evidence that he isolated her, controlled her career or deliberately established dependency while she was underage? The same applies to the assertion that their subsequent adult relationship proves he had planned it years earlier. That conclusion requires evidence of a prior plan, not merely knowledge that two people later became involved. And to avoid confusion, @MaiGrande-Wang and @Mai are different account names; I will not attribute earlier comments from one to the other without evidence they belong to the same person.
@DeeJane70_, you refer to old headlines, deleted posts and evidence that supposedly disappeared, and you reproduce remarks by @Iri and another commenter. But remembering a headline is not the same thing as verifying its underlying material. I have investigated the photographs, dates and military correspondence in earlier discussions. We now have additional reporting that the 2016 KakaoTalk messages presented as Kim Soo-hyun's actually involved another celebrity. If an important screenshot was misattributed, citing its previous circulation as proof makes no sense. You can criticize his 2024 public denial of a past adult relationship, but that admission does not establish grooming or abuse.
@tomo, your August 2026 comments already repeatedly called him a pedophile and groomer and argued that the police decision did not mean the allegations never happened. In this article, you continue calling supporters "pedo supporters", refer to Kim Sae-ron as having been fifteen when he was twenty-seven, and interpret her death on his birthday as a deliberate message. You are presenting your interpretation of her thoughts as fact, even though she is no longer able to explain them. The police investigation, the disputed forensic evidence and the testimony from people involved in her later life all need to be addressed before making an accusation of that seriousness. Wishing that he lives in misery does nothing to establish justice for Kim Sae-ron.
@yoonzinoo, in the May 27, 2026 discussion you wrote that he should die. Now you ask when he will die. This is not a legal argument, a moral analysis or a discussion of grooming. It is the repetition of a death wish against someone you dislike. @Soupp, @_mischievous and @littlespiritmoon, comments categorically describing someone as a pedophile, child rapist, killer or the cause of a suicide require evidence far beyond personal certainty. The same goes for the assumption that every supporter of an accused person must support sexual abuse. That argument is absurd.
@uchiha, I recognize that you specifically objected when another commenter treated your general statement about wealthy people as a direct reference to Kim Soo-hyun. A general observation and an accusation against a particular person are different things. However, elsewhere in your longer comment you explicitly described him as someone who groomed Kim Sae-ron and treated the investigation as an example of wealthy men escaping accountability. That is a specific allegation. General examples of corruption, racism or misogyny in different countries do not prove bribery or grooming in this case. The existence of injustice elsewhere cannot substitute for evidence here.
@Mirage07 and @Ellh Giotaki, I have the same question concerning money and power. Which official was bribed? Who arranged the payment? What evidence establishes interference with the forensic investigation or police decision? Kim Soo-hyun was a successful entertainer, not a president or a political leader commanding state institutions. Former president Yoon Suk Yeol received a life sentence at first instance in February 2026, despite occupying a position of vastly greater political influence. His conviction does not make corruption impossible in other cases, but it makes the casual assumption that an actor must have bought his way out of an investigation particularly weak. This is reality, not a K-drama in which the richest villain automatically owns every institution.
@Robin, criticizing weaknesses in South Korea's justice system is a legitimate subject. But the general statement that Korean police and courts cannot be trusted does not establish that this particular investigation was corrupt. If every finding against Kim Soo-hyun is accepted because it suits a narrative, while every finding in his favour is dismissed as purchased without evidence, that is not consistent scrutiny.
@shiyi, your comments connect the age difference, agency debt and Kim Sae-ron's death as though they establish a single causal sequence. But the financial problems extended beyond Gold Medalist. The agency's stated outstanding balance was approximately ₩700 million after the DUI-related liabilities were reduced. Her father's bankruptcy, the money she had lent within her family, lost contracts and reduced earning opportunities form part of the documented chronology. I have already researched these amounts and their legal context. Criticizing the agency's treatment of an artist is possible without asserting that it caused her death.
@BoyLoveFan, your point about the court of public opinion is relevant to an actor's commercial future. Viewers decide what they want to watch, and a police decision cannot make somebody popular by decree. But popularity is not evidence of guilt either. @Sky2345, you are similarly correct that negative publicity does not automatically translate into commercial success. The test will be future productions, contracts and audience results. Yet the actor's return to public activities and a favourable civil result in the Mido dispute are actual developments, not merely online engagement. Your objection to being accused of controlling multiple accounts without proof is also reasonable.
@old whisky, I noticed that in the May 2026 discussion you were already suggesting another commenter used several accounts and making assessments about that person's psychology. In this article you similarly accuse @Sky2345 of operating multiple profiles. You may recognize recurring language or argumentative patterns, but those observations do not establish common account ownership. @Huanglin___ is correct that account creation dates, writing similarities or repeated replies are not proof that two usernames belong to the same person. We cannot demand evidence from people making allegations against Kim Soo-hyun while treating suspicions about other users as established facts.
@Thea, in August 2026 you argued that Kim Soo-hyun should be behind bars. Here you express agreement with other critical comments. I would be interested to know what specific offence you believed had been established then, and what evidence supports that conclusion now. The July 29 police decision and the October 13 forensic reporting are substantial developments that should be considered before repeating a demand for imprisonment.
@misspulane, your earlier comments were more cautious than several others. In March 2025, you used conditional language when discussing the possibility of criminal wrongdoing and acknowledged that the story was still developing. You even accepted corrections from other users. Your decision not to watch his work now is a personal choice. I also noticed that you expressly described the rumours concerning Jung Hae-in as uncorroborated. That distinction matters. Another actor should not become a target simply because people speculate about whom he supported during this controversy.
@Daldajang, @Key and @JulySnow2, there is also a broader point concerning his age and professional future. Saying a man approaching forty should retire to make space for younger, more attractive actors is not an argument about justice for Kim Sae-ron. Actors are not replaced according to a mandatory age limit. Kim Soo-hyun's international commercial success before the scandal is documented, and his August and September appearances show that opportunities have not disappeared completely. At the same time, his historical achievements do not guarantee his next drama will succeed. That is a question for audiences, broadcasters and investors, not a criminal judgment.
I also want to address the people defending Kim Soo-hyun, because the same evidentiary standards should apply to everyone.
@My Way and @Happy Bird have repeatedly challenged the allegations and shared material from Korean investigations. Much of that information has been useful, especially when other commenters continued presenting disputed accusations as established facts. But I cannot endorse declaring Kim Sae-ron's family criminally guilty before individual responsibility has been established in court, nor confidently announcing that they will all be imprisoned. The Dispatch findings raise serious questions about the handling and attribution of the screenshots. The proper response is investigation and legal accountability based on evidence, not replacing one form of public condemnation with another.
@kdramachic, @Ivy and @choirchik21, the July police decision was significant, but it should be described accurately. Kim Soo-hyun was not found "not guilty" by a criminal court after trial. Seoul Seongdong Police investigated the Child Welfare Act allegations and decided not to refer the case for prosecution because the evidence did not substantiate the offence. That is an official investigative outcome and a strong development in his favour. Using the correct terminology makes the argument more credible.
@Xianu, I understand the anger at comments that continue calling him a pedophile or wishing for his death. But insults about age, intelligence or mental health do not help establish the facts. Nor can we attribute the deaths of unrelated celebrities to Kim Se-ui without specific evidence of legal responsibility. @Modigliani, the same applies to the personal insults directed at other users and predictions that every future Kim Soo-hyun production will be a guaranteed success. We can defend his documented achievements without inventing certainty about the future.
@FollowTheSun, you previously challenged @Daldajang and correctly emphasized that Kim Soo-hyun was not prosecuted for the alleged Child Welfare Act offence. You also ask @UnniSara what evidence establishes grooming. That is the right question. His career being extremely busy, however, is contextual evidence about his professional activities rather than proof of what he was personally capable of doing. Our detailed chronology, the investigative findings and the forensic reporting provide a far stronger basis for questioning the accusations.
@16106004, I remember your direct response to me in the August discussion. You suggested that some commenters were deliberately repeating arguments I had already answered, apparently hoping to provoke another lengthy reply. You were right that I needed to be more selective. This is why I have gone back through the earlier articles instead of approaching every accusation as though it were being made for the first time. But I also disagree with the suggestion, made in your latest comment, that negative users must be one or two people operating numerous accounts. That possibility requires evidence too.
@ibisfeather, @dooh and @mrrrr1, I have also seen your comments in previous articles. @ibisfeather previously expressed the hope that Kim Soo-hyun's reputation could recover, which is different from a claim that every person accused of slandering him has already been convicted. @dooh, your earlier concerns about fabricated AI material are relevant, but the precise forensic findings still matter. @mrrrr1, your earlier description of both actors as essentially children was factually incorrect: Kim Soo-hyun was already an adult when Kim Sae-ron was a child, and his agency places their acknowledged relationship in 2019–2020. There is no need to invent a long childhood romance to defend him.
Finally, I have already demonstrated that I am prepared to correct my own mistakes. In my previous discussion with @Nan, I acknowledged that I had attributed arguments to her that she had not made. Her criticism of Kim Soo-hyun's denial of the adult relationship and her view that Gold Medalist owed Kim Sae-ron more compassion deserved to be answered as those specific arguments, not confused with other people's accusations of sexual abuse or responsibility for suicide. I corrected that publicly. I expect the same willingness to distinguish facts, interpretations and mistakes from everyone else.
I do not expect every commenter to like Kim Soo-hyun, watch his future productions or approve of the decisions he acknowledged making. I do expect people who publicly accuse someone of grooming a child, committing sexual abuse, causing a death or buying a police investigation to provide evidence proportionate to those allegations.
In March 2025, people were confronted with material that many believed supported an underage relationship. In October 2026, investigators have reached a non-referral decision concerning the alleged Child Welfare Act offence, prosecutors have indicted Kim Se-ui, and Dispatch has reported that a key 2016 conversation attributed to Kim Soo-hyun actually involved another celebrity. The factual situation has changed, whether people like the actor or not.
There is no shame in revising an opinion when new evidence emerges. The problem is continuing to repeat the old accusation while refusing to examine the information that challenges it.
Kim Sae-ron deserved better than the public humiliation she endured while alive, and she deserves better than having her private life repeatedly used as a weapon after her death. Kim Soo-hyun deserves to have serious accusations assessed on evidence rather than rumours. And anyone accused of manipulating evidence deserves a legal process that determines individual responsibility rather than a conviction imposed by social media.
If we claim to care about justice, those principles cannot change depending on which person we want to defend.
News 
2 
1 
1 
1 
Here's something that should make your extraordinary imagination work overtime. That photograph was taken by a well-known photographer at the time and was exhibited at a photography exhibition in Paris in 1985, attended by approximately 500,000 people. So, according to your spectacularly defective logic, every single person who paid to visit that exhibition was a pedophile too? Half a million people? That's quite an ambitious accusation. Perhaps you should contact the French authorities and explain your discovery. I'm sure they'll be fascinated.
You previously screamed "SUE ME." Careful what you wish for. American courts have already given people making false accusations some rather expensive lessons. In 2022, blogger Tasha K was ordered to pay nearly $4 million after defaming Cardi B. In 2024, E. Jean Carroll secured an $83.3 million defamation verdict against Donald Trump. Apparently, freedom of speech isn't the magical immunity card you seem to imagine. And since you're so enthusiastic about litigation, you might want to familiarize yourself with Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan Martin and Stephen Shackelford of Susman Godfrey, two accomplished New York litigators I would consider consulting if I pursued legal action. Unlike the celebrity you're attacking, I'm a private individual. You've publicly associated me with pedophilia and child trafficking without a shred of evidence. I've preserved your comments, and I suggest you retract those accusations. Whether they constitute actionable defamation would ultimately depend on the applicable law and jurisdiction.
You wanted a lesson about the limits of free speech. I suggest learning the difference between an opinion and a potentially defamatory accusation before your next performance. And one last thing: you claim to care about protecting children, yet your first instinct upon seeing an innocent childhood photograph was to sexualize it. The photographer saw art. The exhibition visitors saw photography. You saw a conspiracy. Of everyone involved, you're the only person who managed to turn an innocent child's photograph into something disturbing. Perhaps that says considerably more about your imagination than you'd like the rest of us to know.
Regarding MDL, I wouldn't necessarily question the entire website's neutrality over this. From my previous discussions with its contributors, I've come to understand that many articles are essentially translations or summaries of Asian entertainment news, often prepared by community members rather than professional journalists conducting independent investigations. That's an important distinction readers aren't always aware of. I don't believe every mistake indicates an agenda. Sometimes an error is simply an error. But when you're reporting on criminal investigations, accuracy isn't optional, especially when a person's reputation is involved. MDL should absolutely correct this one. I've always considered MDL a useful place to discover dramas and follow entertainment news, but I would never treat it as the final authority on a legal case. That's why I return to the original Korean reporting whenever something doesn't add up. And that's precisely what concerns me about this controversy: a small mistake can travel halfway around the world before the correction has even put its shoes on.
Thank you again for your support. It's encouraging to know that taking the time to check the facts is helping others understand what's actually happening.
Coming from someone who previously argued that lawyers don't have to stick to the truth or facts, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Here's a suggestion: instead of playing detective with my writing style, try finding something factually incorrect in what I've written. Quote it, challenge it, and provide evidence. I'll happily discuss it. Until then, accusing someone of using AI isn't the devastating comeback you seem to think it is. It's simply a rather public admission that you have nothing better to contribute. And judging by our previous exchanges, that does seem to be becoming a habit.
Under South Korea's Criminal Act, Article 311 addresses public insults, while Article 307(2) addresses defamation through knowingly false factual allegations. Whether those laws apply to any particular online comment depends on the circumstances and jurisdiction. You are entitled to dislike Kim Soo-hyun, criticize his agency, or refuse to watch his work. But calling someone a pedophile without established evidence is not legitimate criticism. If you believe he committed a crime, present credible evidence. Otherwise, shouting insults and demanding to be sued contributes nothing to the discussion. I would rather see justice based on evidence than on someone's anger or religious convictions.
Now consider what actually happened. According to Korean reporting on October 26–27, attorney Bu Ji-seok was not originally included among the people Gold Medalist had complained against. Police initiated a separate investigation, and he was subsequently referred to prosecutors on suspicion of criminal defamation and spreading false information. Investigators reportedly identified manipulated KakaoTalk messages and fabricated audio material associated with the public accusations. This was not simply Gold Medalist deciding to sue another person because it disliked what he said. You asked who says the attorney knew the material was false. That is a legitimate legal question. Under Article 307(2) of the Korean Criminal Act, criminal defamation based on false factual allegations requires proof that the person knew those allegations were false. The Korean Supreme Court explicitly addressed that requirement in its October 22, 1999 judgment, case 99Do3213. Whether Bu Ji-seok possessed that knowledge, what he knew about the material's origins, and whether the prosecution can establish the relevant elements are matters for the legal proceedings. A police referral is not a conviction.
But there is something inconsistent about your position. In our earlier discussions, you wrote, "The evidence that he groomed an underage girl is real!" You also called Kim Soo-hyun a criminal and claimed that Kim Sae-ron's alcoholism resulted from his treatment of her. When challenged about your comments, you insisted you were entitled to your opinion. Yet now you are demanding proof of the attorney's knowledge before anyone questions his conduct. I agree that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. That includes the attorney. But it also includes Kim Soo-hyun, whose Child Welfare Act case was closed by police on July 29, 2026, for insufficient evidence, with prosecutors subsequently leaving the decision intact in September. You cannot treat allegations against one man as proven facts while dismissing investigative findings concerning another as nothing more than an agency conspiracy.
And @YvonneSmith, I agree with your general point about professional responsibility, but we should distinguish a suspected breach of legal duties from a proven criminal offence. The lawyer has been referred to prosecutors, not convicted. Also, the relevant jurisdiction here is South Korea, not China. Personally, I have no interest in defending an attorney if he knowingly spread fabricated material, nor in accusing him of doing so before that knowledge is established. I want the evidence examined and the law applied consistently.
Mephisto, you are absolutely entitled to dislike Kim Soo-hyun. But neither your dislike nor your assumption that Gold Medalist is "covering the remaining tracks" constitutes evidence. If you have proof of a cover-up, present it. Otherwise, stop presenting speculation as fact while demanding a standard of proof from everyone else that you have repeatedly refused to apply yourself.
Sources:
South Korean Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 24(2):
https://law.go.kr/LSW/lsSideInfoP.do?docCls=jo&joBrNo=00&joNo=0024&lsiSeq=290789&urlMode=lsScJoRltInfoR
Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 26:
https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsSideInfoP.do?docCls=jo&joBrNo=00&joNo=0026&lsiSeq=290789&urlMode=lsScJoRltInfoR
Criminal Act, Article 307:
https://law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?chrClsCd=010203&lsiSeq=253323&urlMode=engLsInfoR&viewCls=engLsInfoR
Supreme Court judgment 99Do3213:
https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/precInfoP.do?precSeq=192296
Sports Kyunghyang, October 27, 2026:
https://sports.khan.co.kr/en/article/202610271551007
The Korea Herald, October 26, 2026:
https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10915264
Yonhap News, July 29, 2026:
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20260729008600315
The Korea Times, September 8, 2026:
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/amp/entertainment/20260908/kim-soo-hyun-investigation-over-grooming-allegations-effectively-ends-as-police-decision-stands
What I find particularly disturbing is how casually people use mental illness as an insult. Mental health conditions are real, not convenient labels to throw at strangers on the internet. If you believe someone is wrong, explain why. Present evidence, challenge their reasoning, or correct their facts. But calling people mentally ill or blind doesn't prove anything about Kim Soo-hyun. It merely shows how little substance there is behind your comment.
Sources:
Yonhap, July 29, 2026:
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20260729008600315
The Korea Times, September 8, 2026:
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/20260908/kim-soo-hyun-investigation-over-grooming-allegations-effectively-ends-as-police-decision-stands
South Korean Information and Communications Network Act:
https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=203390
Disliking an actor is your right. Publicly declaring him a criminal without substantiated evidence is an entirely different matter.
There is also something you should understand about anonymous online accusations. Being behind a username, or even living outside South Korea, does not necessarily make someone unreachable through legal proceedings. Under 28 U.S.C. §1782, American courts can authorize disclosure of identifying information for use in foreign litigation. This is not hypothetical: on November 24, 2025, a US federal court authorized HYBE, PLEDIS Entertainment and TWS member Han Zhen to seek identifying information about anonymous social-media users in connection with a Korean defamation lawsuit. Of course, US freedom-of-speech protections still apply, and not every offensive opinion constitutes actionable defamation. But repeated factual accusations of serious sexual misconduct can raise legal questions that go well beyond an entertainment website's moderation rules. I am not claiming that Gold Medalist has initiated proceedings against you. I am pointing out that if the agency or its lawyers decided to examine defamatory online statements, anonymity alone would not guarantee protection. If you genuinely care about vulnerable women and children, discuss real evidence and actual victims. Inventing allegations about an actor supposedly hunting for schoolgirls does nothing to protect anyone. I have reported your comment to MDL, and its wording and context have been documented. If Kim Soo-hyun or Gold Medalist decides to pursue legal action over defamatory online accusations, such statements could become relevant evidence.
Sources:
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260729127851004
https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10915264
US federal court order, November 24, 2025:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025mc80319/458035/17
US Code, 28 U.S.C. §1782:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partV-chap117-sec1782.htm
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability for defamatory statements.
Sources:
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260729127851004
https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10915264
Sources:
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260729127851004
https://news.sbs.co.kr/english/article.do?news_id=N1008815434
Gold Medalist did provide financial assistance to Kim Sae-ron by covering substantial liabilities arising from her 2022 DUI. The company later recorded approximately ₩686 million as an unrecoverable debt. It also sent repayment notices in March 2024, which understandably became controversial. We can examine how those notices were handled without pretending that Kim Soo-hyun personally lent her the money or was responsible for her death. More importantly, on July 29, 2026, police closed the Child Welfare Act investigation against Kim Soo-hyun because there was insufficient evidence. The subsequent investigation into the material used to accuse him has led to Kim Se-ui's indictment and the referral of several other individuals, including Kim Sae-ron's mother and the family's lawyer, to prosecutors. I believe Kim Sae-ron deserved more support and protection throughout her life. But why should that concern turn into a permanent judgment against Kim Soo-hyun, particularly when the evidence originally used against him has been seriously challenged? You don't have to like him or watch his dramas. I only ask that you distinguish what you personally feel from what the evidence actually establishes. That distinction matters for both actors.
Sources:
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20250314005900315
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20260729008600315
https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10915264
This time reporting that several individuals involved in the accusations against him had been referred to prosecutors. The article reproduces Gold Medalist's official statement through MyDaily rather than presenting an independent investigation. There is already a significant translation error: the English version refers to individuals impersonating Kim Sae-ron's mother and aunt, whereas the original Korean identifies Kim Sae-ron's actual mother and a person accused of impersonating her aunt. This distinction matters because the mother herself is among those referred, while her father received a police non-referral decision. When an article reproduces an official legal statement, accurately identifying the people involved is the minimum editorial responsibility. It is especially important on a website where readers have spent eighteen months arguing over evidence, criminal accusations and the reputations of both a living actor and a deceased actress.
The October 26 announcement marks a substantial development in a case that began publicly in March 2025. Kim Se-ui, the operator of Garo Sero Research Institute, had already been detained and indicted in June 2026. Gold Medalist subsequently announced that police had referred Kim Sae-ron's mother, the woman presented as her aunt, family lawyer Bu Ji-seok and YouTuber Kwon Young-chan to prosecutors following investigations involving alleged false-information defamation, distribution of private material and attempted coercion. The accusations and applicable offences are not identical for every individual. Police also investigated some participants independently of the original complaints. These referrals are important, but they are not convictions, just as a prosecutor's decision to proceed would not establish guilt before a court judgment. I insist on this distinction because the same legal precision was repeatedly missing when Kim Soo-hyun himself was being publicly accused.
What the latest article fails to place in context is the investigative history preceding this announcement. On July 29, 2026, Seoul Seongdong Police decided not to refer the Child Welfare Act allegations against Kim Soo-hyun for prosecution because the evidence was insufficient. In September, prosecutors left that decision intact without ordering a supplementary or renewed investigation. On October 13, Dispatch reported findings from police examinations of Kim Sae-ron's devices and cloud records indicating that the disputed 2016 KakaoTalk conversation presented as involving Kim Soo-hyun actually involved another celebrity. The report also described testimony alleging that Kim Se-ui instructed a staff member to replace an unidentified sender's label with Kim Soo-hyun's name. The attribution and alleged alteration are significant investigative findings, although the criminal responsibility of those involved must still be determined by the courts. These developments directly undermine evidence that was once circulated as proof of an underage relationship.
This is why the latest comment section cannot be understood in isolation. We have already witnessed similar arguments under MDL's March 13, 2025 article, Kim Soo Hyun's agency to address actor's relationship controversy with the late Kim Sae Ron, the March 17 article, Kim Sae Ron was completely ostracized, claim family representatives, the March 31 article covering Kim Soo-hyun's press conference, the May 7 article about the family's purported evidence, and the August 10, 2026 article about his return to television. The same usernames, allegations and rhetorical strategies reappear, sometimes without acknowledging that the evidence has changed. I have retained earlier comments, so these are not impressions based on a single heated discussion. They are identifiable statements made under identifiable articles.
Mephisto is one example. Under the March 13, 2025 article, this commenter questioned whether a publicly circulated letter could be fake. Under the August 10, 2026 comeback article, Mephisto insisted that evidence of grooming was real and argued that investigators had focused on AI audio while overlooking letters. In the current article, the argument has shifted to defending the family's lawyer, with Mephisto asserting that an attorney does not have to adhere to truth or facts. That last claim is particularly troubling because Article 24(2) of South Korea's Attorney-at-Law Act explicitly prohibits lawyers from concealing the truth or making false statements in the performance of their duties. This does not automatically prove that Bu Ji-seok knowingly used fabricated evidence, but his professional obligations cannot simply be dismissed. The issue is whether he knew, or otherwise unlawfully participated in presenting, false material. A lawyer's duty to defend a client is not permission to knowingly manufacture or misrepresent evidence. Mephisto's recurring criticism of Kim Soo-hyun is a personal position; the assertion about what the law allows is a factual question, and the statute provides the answer.
SirKoki also has a documented history in these discussions. Under the May 27, 2026 article, (Kim Soo Hyun comeback possibility rises as court issues arrest warrant for Kim Se Ui), SirKoki advanced the argument that a man in his thirties had remained close to an underage girl while waiting until she turned eighteen. That was precisely the allegation requiring evidence, not a fact established by photographs or public familiarity. In August, under the comeback article, SirKoki compared Kim Soo-hyun's situation with Seo Ye-ji's career. In the present discussion, the comparison shifts towards Seungri, Choi Jong-hoon, Lee Jin-wook and Samsung chairman Lee Jae-yong. Yet those cases have fundamentally different judicial histories. Seungri and Choi Jong-hoon received criminal convictions; Lee Jae-yong's bribery conviction and subsequent pardon are matters of record; Lee Jin-wook was not convicted of the sexual-assault allegation against him. Kim Soo-hyun's alleged underage relationship did not produce a criminal conviction, a sentence subsequently reduced or a presidential pardon. Criticism of the Korean justice system can be legitimate, but combining unrelated cases does not establish that another actor escaped punishment for an unproven offence.
Daldajang illustrates a different problem: the continued reinterpretation of evidence to preserve earlier suspicions. Under the March 17, 2025 article, Daldajang praised the family's strategy as direct, calm and effective, arguing that they wanted an admission and apology rather than a large financial settlement. The same discussion also contained speculation about manipulation, financial pressure and misconduct by Gold Medalist. Under the May 7 article, Daldajang defended the woman described as the aunt and circulated accusations about Kim Soo-hyun's alleged behaviour towards minors. By August 10, the position had become that his innocence had never been adjudicated and that the public could still consider him guilty regardless of the judicial process. That distinction between legal judgment and personal opinion is legitimate, but it cannot transform conjecture into verified conduct. Daldajang's latest comment about a corrupt government and K-drama plots is plainly sarcastic; treating it as a literal confession of belief in a conspiracy would be unfair. Nevertheless, the earlier assertions remain part of the discussion's history. When evidence changes, an intellectually consistent position requires reconsidering claims that depended upon the disputed material, not merely moving to another allegation.
The newest participants demonstrate that the problem has not disappeared. Freespeech speculates that Kim Soo-hyun targets financially vulnerable actresses and walks around schools looking for young girls, later calling him a criminal protected by money. Harpy14789 similarly calls him a criminal despite the lack of a criminal conviction supporting that accusation. Andj123 repeatedly uses accusations of pedophilia against the actor and against other commenters who defend him, while also resorting to personal and sexual insults. These are not investigative arguments. They are statements about supposed criminal behaviour for which the commenters provide no verified evidence. There is a difference between saying that one does not wish to watch an actor and alleging that he targets children. Personal dislike requires no proof; serious accusations against a real person do.
The exchanges involving Andj123, mrrrr1 and Chen Lu also expose confusion about South Korean criminal law. The historical age-of-consent provisions were changed in 2020. Before that reform, Article 305 of the Criminal Act addressed sexual conduct involving children under thirteen; the amendment introduced Article 305(2), extending the provision to thirteen-to-fifteen-year-olds where the other person was at least nineteen. Article 13(1) of the South Korean Constitution prohibits retroactively imposing criminal liability for conduct that was not criminal when committed. Chen Lu is therefore right to distinguish historical legislation from today's law. However, claiming that prosecution for every possible form of sexual abuse before 2020 would have been impossible goes too far, because other criminal provisions existed. More importantly, an argument about the applicable law does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred. Mrrrr1's invocation of beheading and subsequent sexual abuse directed at another commenter is equally unacceptable. Nobody needs to defend Kim Soo-hyun by normalizing threats, execution fantasies or harassment.
Fing-mad presents the theory that bribing institutions could be less expensive than facing advertising-contract penalties. That is an economic hypothesis without supporting evidence of corruption. Kim Soo-hyun is a successful actor, but his celebrity status does not establish control over police officers, prosecutors, forensic investigators and judges. The immediate advertising losses, disrupted projects and interruption to his professional activities are documented. Meanwhile, the police's examination of devices, the identification of another sender in the disputed messages and the referrals of additional suspects provide specific investigative developments that critics must address. If someone believes an official was bribed, the relevant questions are who received money, when, from whom and in exchange for which action. Without that evidence, calling every unfavourable finding corrupt is not scrutiny of the justice system; it is a way of making an accusation impossible to disprove.
LucyL's position deserves examination because it has evolved in a revealing way. Under the May 7, 2025 article about the family's alleged evidence, LucyL argued that MDL had transformed from a drama-discussion website into a tabloid. Under the August 10, 2026 comeback article, LucyL criticized the contributor responsible for recycled articles as a copy-and-paste writer and argued that MDL should prioritize other entertainment news. Now, in the October 26 article, LucyL demands an end to coverage because prosecutions are supposedly unrelated to Kim Soo-hyun's productions and are disrespectful to Kim Sae-ron's memory. I share the criticism of careless, sensationalist republishing, but the solution cannot be to stop reporting precisely when the allegations are undergoing serious evidentiary examination. MDL published extensively while Kim Soo-hyun's career was being damaged. Its readers deserve the outcome of the investigations with at least the same visibility. Respect for Kim Sae-ron's memory requires accurate reporting, not leaving the earlier public narrative uncorrected.
Beatrix0304, by contrast, acknowledges limited knowledge of the case and encourages people to leave judicial decisions to professionals. That is a more responsible position than pretending personal suspicion amounts to proof. A police non-referral does not turn Kim Soo-hyun into a saint, and I have never argued that it should. It means the authorities did not find sufficient evidence to pursue the specified allegations. Similarly, a referral of Kim Sae-ron's mother or lawyer does not establish their guilt. There is no contradiction in defending an actor from unsupported criminal accusations while insisting that every suspect receives due process. Horangae_'s demand for justice for Kim Sae-ron deserves the same consideration. Her death and the circumstances of her life are legitimate subjects of concern. But justice for her cannot be defined in advance as punishing Kim Soo-hyun, regardless of what investigators find. Any wrongdoing concerning her finances, privacy, professional treatment or personal relationships should be investigated on its own evidence.
The financial question remains important, but several comments are presenting suspicions as proven motives. LOm2009 refers to a purported agreement awarding the family's lawyer a 20% success fee and interprets this as evidence of an intended financial extraction from Kim Soo-hyun. I have not found independently authenticated documentation establishing the contract's complete terms or the proposed basis for payment. Even if an agreement existed, its wording and context would matter before identifying an unlawful purpose. There is, however, a separate and documented financial history deserving attention. Kim Sae-ron's own legal representatives told the court in 2023 that her earnings had supported family businesses and household expenses. Subsequent reporting from her father's bankruptcy records described a substantial loan originating in November 2014, when Kim Sae-ron was only fourteen. Gold Medalist separately acknowledged a remaining corporate receivable of approximately ₩686 million arising after her DUI and the repayment notices sent in March 2024. These facts justify investigating who controlled her earnings as a minor, what happened to the money and whether her family was financially dependent on her. They do not yet prove that her relatives organized the accusations against Kim Soo-hyun for financial gain.
The woman described as Kim Sae-ron's aunt is also more complicated than the label suggests. In March 2025, Kim Sae-ron's mother publicly acknowledged that the woman was not a biological relative. She described her as the mother of another child actor whom the family had known for approximately twenty years, someone who assisted with childcare and managerial matters and was authorized to communicate on the family's behalf. Therefore, the absence of a blood relationship was not itself a concealed discovery made in October 2026. The questions are what this woman said publicly, what she knew about the evidence, whether she knowingly participated in false statements and whether her longstanding managerial role can be independently documented. The new police referral makes those questions more urgent; it does not prove that she controlled Kim Sae-ron's childhood finances or participated in every decision made by the family.
Supporters of Kim Soo-hyun should be held to the same factual standards as his critics. My Way has repeatedly argued against unsubstantiated allegations, including in the October 14, 2026 article, (Kim Soo Hyun's agency seeks to close the chapter on late Kim Sae Ron controversy). Yet this has frequently been accompanied by insults, accusations that other commenters operate multiple accounts and categorical judgments about Kim Sae-ron's relatives' financial motives. In the current discussion, My Way again describes the family as greedy and treats imprisonment as inevitable. Happy Bird's earlier comments under the October 14 article similarly combined legitimate demands for accountability with language treating disputed responsibility as already decided. The anger is understandable given the damage caused by these allegations, but it is not necessary to presume a future conviction or assert financial motives without proof to defend Kim Soo-hyun. The same applies to claims that other commenters must be secretly paid, coordinated or operating multiple identities. Such allegations require evidence too.
Etoks21 illustrates why I reject the idea that only one side is responsible for the hostility on MDL. In the March 13, 2025 article, this user criticized MDL for promoting unproven accusations and potentially contributing to celebrity harassment. That concern was legitimate. Yet under the March 31, 2025 article and repeatedly in the August 10, 2026 comeback discussion, the same account directed demeaning remarks at other users, invoked Korean celebrity suicides as insults and repeatedly used hostile generalizations about Korean netizens. The latest comments continue that pattern. Someone can defend Kim Soo-hyun's right to fair treatment without ridiculing suicide, abusing other users or treating nationality as an insult. The moderation rules displayed above the current MDL discussion should apply regardless of whether a commenter supports or opposes the actor.
There is an underlying editorial issue here that goes beyond individual arguments. Lily Alice is an umbrella name for credited MDL contributors, but a translated or condensed report is not an independently investigated news article. We have previously discussed how MDL contributors reproduce Asian entertainment reporting for international readers, sometimes without adding sufficient background or checking the implications of the wording. That distinction matters because readers often treat the English article as an authoritative account of what happened, even when it is a shortened adaptation of another publication. In this case, a basic translation error changes the identity of a referred suspect. An editorial correction should not be difficult: compare the English sentence with the original Korean, correct it, and preserve the distinction between the agency's statement, police investigative decisions and future prosecutorial or judicial findings. The more serious question is why the platform's earlier coverage was not systematically revisited after the evidence changed.
I also recognize that not every supportive comment is problematic. Kdramachic has consistently argued that subsequent investigative developments deserve attention, including under the August 10 and October 14 articles. Lamia's current comment raises a legitimate broader concern about celebrities targeted by cyberwreckers and manipulated digital material. Even Happy Bird's demand for accountability addresses a real issue when separated from premature judgments. The public should be able to discuss how online allegations affect an entertainer's livelihood, how digital evidence should be authenticated and how journalists distinguish legitimate investigation from reputational attacks. What undermines those discussions is not disagreement but the continued presentation of allegations, suspicions and personal animosity as established facts.
I do not expect every reader to become a Kim Soo-hyun supporter. I do expect those who publicly accused him of grooming, child abuse, bribery or causing Kim Sae-ron's death to revisit their statements in light of the July police decision, the September prosecutorial review and the October forensic reporting. I also expect those defending him to acknowledge that ongoing referrals and indictments are not convictions. The facts do not change according to which person we want to protect. If a statement was wrong in March 2025, repeating it in November 2026 does not make it true. And if a new legal development contradicts an earlier allegation, ignoring that development is not intellectual independence.
The central responsibility now belongs as much to publishers as to commenters. MDL helped circulate the original accusations to an international audience. It should therefore correct translation errors, provide the missing investigative context, update earlier articles where material claims have been undermined and enforce its own rules against harassment consistently. Kim Sae-ron's death deserves a serious examination of her life, including her financial difficulties and the people who influenced her circumstances. Kim Soo-hyun deserves an equally serious examination of the allegations against him, without being treated as guilty because of a rumour or innocent merely because of his fame. I have followed this case long enough to remember what was said, by whom and under which article. That history matters because accountability is not simply demanding a verdict from the courts. It also means being prepared to correct the public record when the evidence no longer supports what we once believed.
For readers wishing to verify the legal and investigative developments themselves, the principal sources are Yonhap's October 26 report (https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20261026091500005), Yonhap's July 29 police report (https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260729127851004), The Korea Times' September 8 follow-up (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/20260908/kim-soo-hyun-investigation-over-grooming-allegations-effectively-ends-as-police-decision-stands), Dispatch's October 13 forensic investigation (https://www.dispatch.co.kr/2349117), Newsis' March 21, 2025 account of the mother's explanation of the aunt (https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20250321_0003108666), and Article 24 of South Korea's Attorney-at-Law Act (https://law.go.kr/LSW/lsSideInfoP.do?docCls=jo&joBrNo=00&joNo=0024&lsiSeq=290789&urlMode=lsScJoRltInfoR).
Disagreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to insult, mock or harass them. If you see personal attacks against other users, please report them to MDL instead of responding with more insults. The same applies to people repeatedly calling someone a "groomer", "pedophile" or "criminal" without substantiated evidence, especially when official investigations and newer findings have challenged those accusations.
Freedom of speech is not a free pass for harassment or defamatory allegations. US law protects free expression, but it does not provide blanket immunity for false statements of fact that unlawfully damage someone's reputation. MDL's own community guidelines also prohibit personal attacks and harassment, regardless of which side someone supports. Please report these comments rather than allowing bullying and misinformation to dominate the discussion. The rules apply to everyone.
Before addressing individual comments, I want to make something clear: this is not a personal attack against anyone mentioned here, nor an invitation to harass or target other users. I respect everyone's right to disagree, criticize an actor or express a personal opinion. My responses concern publicly posted statements and factual allegations, not the people behind the accounts. I have reviewed and archived previous discussions to ensure that comments are represented accurately and in context, including my own earlier replies. Where I disagree, I explain why and refer to the available evidence. I do not question anyone's personal worth, identity or right to participate in this discussion. I simply believe that serious accusations deserve serious scrutiny, and that the same standards of accuracy, respect and accountability should apply to everyone, including myself.
I have read the comments under this article. Several users have been commenting about Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron since March 2025, and some have repeated the same accusations dozens of times, even after the original evidence was questioned by investigators. I have already responded to many of those arguments, sometimes with detailed chronological research, Korean legal sources and financial records. The question now is not simply what people believed eighteen months ago, but whether those beliefs still fit the evidence available in October 2026.
@QueenCherry, your latest comment is a perfect example of why this discussion has gone so far beyond legitimate criticism. You wrote, "SUE ME PEDO BYTCH," while accusing Kim Soo-hyun of lying and declaring that he deserves eternal punishment. You are entitled to dislike him, his company or his work. Your religious beliefs are also your own. But publicly calling someone a pedophile is a serious factual accusation, not simply an expression of anger. The alleged underage relationship was investigated, and police found insufficient evidence to refer the Child Welfare Act case for prosecution. If you believe you possess evidence establishing otherwise, present it through the appropriate channels. I have preserved your comment alongside the earlier discussions, because people should understand that publicly making such accusations can carry legal consequences. Challenging someone to sue you does not make an otherwise unlawful statement immune from scrutiny.
@JulySnow2, you have been particularly active since the March 13, 2025 article. You accused Kim Soo-hyun of dating a minor for years, described him as a pedophile, encouraged people to boycott his projects and repeatedly presented past interviews, friendships and rumours as evidence of his alleged character. In the May 27, 2026 discussion, you specifically claimed he had isolated Kim Sae-ron by bringing her into Gold Medalist, depriving her of financial independence and abusing her financially. Now you say accountability cannot simply be forgotten and that he should retire because he is approaching 40. You are entitled to believe younger actors are more interesting, but that does not address the allegations you previously made. Where is the evidence of financial isolation, especially given her documented debts, other relationships and the fact that Gold Medalist was the corporate creditor? Where is the evidence of grooming, particularly after investigators reportedly identified another celebrity as the sender of the disputed 2016 messages? A comment about his age does not resolve those questions.
@Lmorgan0220, in the March 26, 2025 discussion you claimed Kim Soo-hyun groomed Kim Sae-ron, damaged her psychologically and probably contributed to her drinking, DUI and eventual death. In this article, you continue referring to her as a grooming victim, express concern about another possible victim and suggest his wealth could have bought the investigation's outcome. That is a series of increasingly serious accusations, yet I have not seen evidence establishing those causal claims, another victim or a corrupt payment. The police investigation concluded without referral for the alleged Child Welfare Act violation. Prosecutors subsequently indicted Kim Se-ui over allegedly false or distorted material. And Dispatch now reports forensic findings identifying another man in the central 2016 conversation. None of that can simply be dismissed by saying a wealthy actor must have bought the result.
@Daldajang, we have already discussed the difference between a police non-referral and a court acquittal, and I have acknowledged that your insistence on correct legal terminology was justified. You also previously raised much more serious theories about grooming, agency manipulation, Gold Medalist's financial conduct and even the suggestion that Kim Soo-hyun displaying a watch was a warning connected to Kim Sae-ron's death. That last interpretation was extraordinarily speculative. In this article, however, your argument is more limited: his past commercial achievements do not guarantee that "Knock-Off" or another future production will succeed. I agree with that. A future commercial performance must be measured when the production is released. But that reasonable point does not establish your earlier allegations, nor should the new forensic evidence be ignored simply because you remain sceptical of him.
@Mephisto, you have repeatedly appeared in these discussions. In May 2026, you called Kim Soo-hyun a criminal. In the August 2026 article, you insisted that the evidence of grooming an underage girl was real and accused others of focusing on the disputed AI recording while ignoring the military letters. You also claimed that his treatment of Kim Sae-ron contributed to her alcoholism. Now you say you hope karma catches up with him and that you will not watch his work. Nobody can force you to watch an actor you dislike. But your earlier factual accusations remain unanswered. A military letter is not automatically evidence of grooming, and the October forensic reporting makes the original claims concerning the 2016 messages even more problematic.
@ShadowOzzy, your comments on the March 31, 2025 press conference already described Kim Soo-hyun's crying as a performance and connected him to allegations involving Sulli and the film "Real". Now you suggest burner phones, claim he personally lent Kim Sae-ron the money and forced repayment, and treat her death being discovered on his birthday as proof of his guilt. Those are not established facts. The documented creditor was Gold Medalist. The company explained the approximately ₩700 million balance and the accounting process in its March 2025 statement. Investigators reportedly examined several telephones and recovered extensive communications. Inventing another unidentified device does not invalidate that investigation. Nor does a date establish someone's intention or another person's responsibility for a death.
@Key, you were already describing Kim Sae-ron as his victim in March 2025 and treating his press conference as evidence of an objectionable personality. By August, you wanted fewer articles about him. Now you argue that no sensible agency or advertiser would consider him commercially viable. Public relations and profitability are legitimate business questions, but predictions are not findings. His August return on Indonesian television, September appearance at The Fact Music Awards and Gold Medalist's victory in the Mido advertising dispute demonstrate that his professional situation cannot be summarized as every company permanently abandoning him. Equally, his past successes do not guarantee that his next drama will be profitable. We should judge actual commercial results rather than imaginary ones.
@MadyHammad, in March 2025 you wrote that Kim Soo-hyun was entirely responsible for Kim Sae-ron's death and childhood trauma. Your current comment simply says the damage cannot be undone. Reputational damage certainly can persist, but your original accusation was far more serious than a comment about public perception. What evidence established responsibility for her death? Have the subsequent investigation, reported forensic findings or accounts from people involved in her later life changed that conclusion at all?
@Seeking Joy, in March 2025 you described Kim Soo-hyun's complaints against Kim Se-ui and Kim Sae-ron's family as retaliation against people reporting injustice. You also raised the idea that powerful people could buy favourable legal outcomes. You now intend to boycott everything associated with Gold Medalist, including productions involving other artists, and you cite Lee El as an example of someone who supported Kim Sae-ron. Your commercial choices are yours, but the underlying argument requires updating. Investigators subsequently examined the material, prosecutors brought charges and Dispatch reported that the purported 2016 conversations with Kim Soo-hyun actually involved another celebrity. Lee El's March 2025 statement raised concerns about attitudes towards women, but contemporary reporting did not establish that she was giving direct testimony against Kim Soo-hyun. We should distinguish public criticism of the entertainment industry from evidence about this case.
@SirKoki, in May 2026 you questioned why a man around 30 would know a younger girl and supposedly wait for her to turn 18. In August, you compared Kim Soo-hyun's treatment with Seo Ye-ji's. Now you suggest his supporters are displaying hybristophilia, an attraction towards people who commit crimes. That description presupposes that his supporters are attracted to someone whose criminal conduct is established. But the underage allegation was investigated and not substantiated. And concerning Seo Ye-ji, Gold Medalist renewed her contract in December 2021, after the controversy involving her former boyfriend, and their relationship continued until November 2023. She was not immediately dismissed, as some people here have claimed.
@Lili, I agree that South Korea's entertainment industry deserves scrutiny for its treatment of female artists and the intense bullying Kim Sae-ron suffered. But your statement that Seo Ye-ji's agency contract ended shortly after her 2021 controversy contradicts the documented chronology. Gold Medalist renewed her contract in December 2021 and represented her during her return in "Eve" in 2022. You also say Kim Soo-hyun volunteered to pay Kim Sae-ron's debts and then abandoned her. The financial record instead concerns approximately ₩700 million remaining on the books of Gold Medalist, not a personal loan from Kim Soo-hyun. You can believe the agency should have offered more support without rewriting the contractual facts or announcing that its actions caused her death.
https://www.hankookilbo.com/news/article/A2021123016170004436
https://www.mk.co.kr/news/hot-issues/10887059
@Iri, you say that a relationship can be legal and still morally unacceptable. I agree with that principle. Nobody has to approve of the age difference. But the distinction matters because the allegation here was not simply that an older adult dated a younger adult. It was that Kim Soo-hyun groomed or sexually exploited Kim Sae-ron as a child. I have experienced grooming myself, and I know why its psychological mechanisms must be examined seriously. An age gap, a friendship, a military letter or an adult relationship does not automatically establish the deliberate process of manipulation and dependency involved. I have searched the chronology for evidence of that process, and the investigation did not substantiate the alleged offence.
@MaiGrande-Wang, you explicitly state that he groomed her and waited until she turned 18. @UnniSara, you say he manipulated her into joining his agency, which supposedly caused her financial collapse. Those are not simply expressions of discomfort about an age gap. They are factual allegations about particular actions. Where is the evidence that he isolated her, controlled her career or deliberately established dependency while she was underage? The same applies to the assertion that their subsequent adult relationship proves he had planned it years earlier. That conclusion requires evidence of a prior plan, not merely knowledge that two people later became involved. And to avoid confusion, @MaiGrande-Wang and @Mai are different account names; I will not attribute earlier comments from one to the other without evidence they belong to the same person.
@DeeJane70_, you refer to old headlines, deleted posts and evidence that supposedly disappeared, and you reproduce remarks by @Iri and another commenter. But remembering a headline is not the same thing as verifying its underlying material. I have investigated the photographs, dates and military correspondence in earlier discussions. We now have additional reporting that the 2016 KakaoTalk messages presented as Kim Soo-hyun's actually involved another celebrity. If an important screenshot was misattributed, citing its previous circulation as proof makes no sense. You can criticize his 2024 public denial of a past adult relationship, but that admission does not establish grooming or abuse.
@tomo, your August 2026 comments already repeatedly called him a pedophile and groomer and argued that the police decision did not mean the allegations never happened. In this article, you continue calling supporters "pedo supporters", refer to Kim Sae-ron as having been fifteen when he was twenty-seven, and interpret her death on his birthday as a deliberate message. You are presenting your interpretation of her thoughts as fact, even though she is no longer able to explain them. The police investigation, the disputed forensic evidence and the testimony from people involved in her later life all need to be addressed before making an accusation of that seriousness. Wishing that he lives in misery does nothing to establish justice for Kim Sae-ron.
@yoonzinoo, in the May 27, 2026 discussion you wrote that he should die. Now you ask when he will die. This is not a legal argument, a moral analysis or a discussion of grooming. It is the repetition of a death wish against someone you dislike. @Soupp, @_mischievous and @littlespiritmoon, comments categorically describing someone as a pedophile, child rapist, killer or the cause of a suicide require evidence far beyond personal certainty. The same goes for the assumption that every supporter of an accused person must support sexual abuse. That argument is absurd.
@uchiha, I recognize that you specifically objected when another commenter treated your general statement about wealthy people as a direct reference to Kim Soo-hyun. A general observation and an accusation against a particular person are different things. However, elsewhere in your longer comment you explicitly described him as someone who groomed Kim Sae-ron and treated the investigation as an example of wealthy men escaping accountability. That is a specific allegation. General examples of corruption, racism or misogyny in different countries do not prove bribery or grooming in this case. The existence of injustice elsewhere cannot substitute for evidence here.
@Mirage07 and @Ellh Giotaki, I have the same question concerning money and power. Which official was bribed? Who arranged the payment? What evidence establishes interference with the forensic investigation or police decision? Kim Soo-hyun was a successful entertainer, not a president or a political leader commanding state institutions. Former president Yoon Suk Yeol received a life sentence at first instance in February 2026, despite occupying a position of vastly greater political influence. His conviction does not make corruption impossible in other cases, but it makes the casual assumption that an actor must have bought his way out of an investigation particularly weak. This is reality, not a K-drama in which the richest villain automatically owns every institution.
@Robin, criticizing weaknesses in South Korea's justice system is a legitimate subject. But the general statement that Korean police and courts cannot be trusted does not establish that this particular investigation was corrupt. If every finding against Kim Soo-hyun is accepted because it suits a narrative, while every finding in his favour is dismissed as purchased without evidence, that is not consistent scrutiny.
@shiyi, your comments connect the age difference, agency debt and Kim Sae-ron's death as though they establish a single causal sequence. But the financial problems extended beyond Gold Medalist. The agency's stated outstanding balance was approximately ₩700 million after the DUI-related liabilities were reduced. Her father's bankruptcy, the money she had lent within her family, lost contracts and reduced earning opportunities form part of the documented chronology. I have already researched these amounts and their legal context. Criticizing the agency's treatment of an artist is possible without asserting that it caused her death.
@BoyLoveFan, your point about the court of public opinion is relevant to an actor's commercial future. Viewers decide what they want to watch, and a police decision cannot make somebody popular by decree. But popularity is not evidence of guilt either. @Sky2345, you are similarly correct that negative publicity does not automatically translate into commercial success. The test will be future productions, contracts and audience results. Yet the actor's return to public activities and a favourable civil result in the Mido dispute are actual developments, not merely online engagement. Your objection to being accused of controlling multiple accounts without proof is also reasonable.
@old whisky, I noticed that in the May 2026 discussion you were already suggesting another commenter used several accounts and making assessments about that person's psychology. In this article you similarly accuse @Sky2345 of operating multiple profiles. You may recognize recurring language or argumentative patterns, but those observations do not establish common account ownership. @Huanglin___ is correct that account creation dates, writing similarities or repeated replies are not proof that two usernames belong to the same person. We cannot demand evidence from people making allegations against Kim Soo-hyun while treating suspicions about other users as established facts.
@Thea, in August 2026 you argued that Kim Soo-hyun should be behind bars. Here you express agreement with other critical comments. I would be interested to know what specific offence you believed had been established then, and what evidence supports that conclusion now. The July 29 police decision and the October 13 forensic reporting are substantial developments that should be considered before repeating a demand for imprisonment.
@misspulane, your earlier comments were more cautious than several others. In March 2025, you used conditional language when discussing the possibility of criminal wrongdoing and acknowledged that the story was still developing. You even accepted corrections from other users. Your decision not to watch his work now is a personal choice. I also noticed that you expressly described the rumours concerning Jung Hae-in as uncorroborated. That distinction matters. Another actor should not become a target simply because people speculate about whom he supported during this controversy.
@Daldajang, @Key and @JulySnow2, there is also a broader point concerning his age and professional future. Saying a man approaching forty should retire to make space for younger, more attractive actors is not an argument about justice for Kim Sae-ron. Actors are not replaced according to a mandatory age limit. Kim Soo-hyun's international commercial success before the scandal is documented, and his August and September appearances show that opportunities have not disappeared completely. At the same time, his historical achievements do not guarantee his next drama will succeed. That is a question for audiences, broadcasters and investors, not a criminal judgment.
I also want to address the people defending Kim Soo-hyun, because the same evidentiary standards should apply to everyone.
@My Way and @Happy Bird have repeatedly challenged the allegations and shared material from Korean investigations. Much of that information has been useful, especially when other commenters continued presenting disputed accusations as established facts. But I cannot endorse declaring Kim Sae-ron's family criminally guilty before individual responsibility has been established in court, nor confidently announcing that they will all be imprisoned. The Dispatch findings raise serious questions about the handling and attribution of the screenshots. The proper response is investigation and legal accountability based on evidence, not replacing one form of public condemnation with another.
@kdramachic, @Ivy and @choirchik21, the July police decision was significant, but it should be described accurately. Kim Soo-hyun was not found "not guilty" by a criminal court after trial. Seoul Seongdong Police investigated the Child Welfare Act allegations and decided not to refer the case for prosecution because the evidence did not substantiate the offence. That is an official investigative outcome and a strong development in his favour. Using the correct terminology makes the argument more credible.
@Xianu, I understand the anger at comments that continue calling him a pedophile or wishing for his death. But insults about age, intelligence or mental health do not help establish the facts. Nor can we attribute the deaths of unrelated celebrities to Kim Se-ui without specific evidence of legal responsibility. @Modigliani, the same applies to the personal insults directed at other users and predictions that every future Kim Soo-hyun production will be a guaranteed success. We can defend his documented achievements without inventing certainty about the future.
@FollowTheSun, you previously challenged @Daldajang and correctly emphasized that Kim Soo-hyun was not prosecuted for the alleged Child Welfare Act offence. You also ask @UnniSara what evidence establishes grooming. That is the right question. His career being extremely busy, however, is contextual evidence about his professional activities rather than proof of what he was personally capable of doing. Our detailed chronology, the investigative findings and the forensic reporting provide a far stronger basis for questioning the accusations.
@16106004, I remember your direct response to me in the August discussion. You suggested that some commenters were deliberately repeating arguments I had already answered, apparently hoping to provoke another lengthy reply. You were right that I needed to be more selective. This is why I have gone back through the earlier articles instead of approaching every accusation as though it were being made for the first time. But I also disagree with the suggestion, made in your latest comment, that negative users must be one or two people operating numerous accounts. That possibility requires evidence too.
@ibisfeather, @dooh and @mrrrr1, I have also seen your comments in previous articles. @ibisfeather previously expressed the hope that Kim Soo-hyun's reputation could recover, which is different from a claim that every person accused of slandering him has already been convicted. @dooh, your earlier concerns about fabricated AI material are relevant, but the precise forensic findings still matter. @mrrrr1, your earlier description of both actors as essentially children was factually incorrect: Kim Soo-hyun was already an adult when Kim Sae-ron was a child, and his agency places their acknowledged relationship in 2019–2020. There is no need to invent a long childhood romance to defend him.
Finally, I have already demonstrated that I am prepared to correct my own mistakes. In my previous discussion with @Nan, I acknowledged that I had attributed arguments to her that she had not made. Her criticism of Kim Soo-hyun's denial of the adult relationship and her view that Gold Medalist owed Kim Sae-ron more compassion deserved to be answered as those specific arguments, not confused with other people's accusations of sexual abuse or responsibility for suicide. I corrected that publicly. I expect the same willingness to distinguish facts, interpretations and mistakes from everyone else.
My earlier chronological research remains available in the August 10 article, including the reconstruction of military service, public activities and relationship claims, together with the financial and legal analysis:
https://news.mydramalist.com/article/kim-soo-hyun-officially-resumes-activities-a-year-after-late-kim-sae-ron-controversy#comment-26929672
https://news.mydramalist.com/article/kim-soo-hyun-officially-resumes-activities-a-year-after-late-kim-sae-ron-controversy#comment-27169970
https://news.mydramalist.com/article/kim-soo-hyun-officially-resumes-activities-a-year-after-late-kim-sae-ron-controversy#comment-27176938
The October findings can also be checked directly through Korean reporting:
https://www.dispatch.co.kr/2349117
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260729127851004
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260623158700004
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20261015107400004
I do not expect every commenter to like Kim Soo-hyun, watch his future productions or approve of the decisions he acknowledged making. I do expect people who publicly accuse someone of grooming a child, committing sexual abuse, causing a death or buying a police investigation to provide evidence proportionate to those allegations.
In March 2025, people were confronted with material that many believed supported an underage relationship. In October 2026, investigators have reached a non-referral decision concerning the alleged Child Welfare Act offence, prosecutors have indicted Kim Se-ui, and Dispatch has reported that a key 2016 conversation attributed to Kim Soo-hyun actually involved another celebrity. The factual situation has changed, whether people like the actor or not.
There is no shame in revising an opinion when new evidence emerges. The problem is continuing to repeat the old accusation while refusing to examine the information that challenges it.
Kim Sae-ron deserved better than the public humiliation she endured while alive, and she deserves better than having her private life repeatedly used as a weapon after her death. Kim Soo-hyun deserves to have serious accusations assessed on evidence rather than rumours. And anyone accused of manipulating evidence deserves a legal process that determines individual responsibility rather than a conviction imposed by social media.
If we claim to care about justice, those principles cannot change depending on which person we want to defend.