Falhon Cyril

That's the problem with this discussion. The moment someone asks for evidence, they're called a "fan." I don't need Kim Soo Hyun to be innocent or guilty. I just need the evidence to support whichever conclusion people are claiming. That's how justice is supposed to work.

I understand your frustration, but I don't think personal insults help. The strongest argument is the evidence itself. If Kim Se-ui knowingly spread false information, the courts will deal with that. Facts are more convincing than insults.

I can't understand how anyone can call someone a pedophile without verified evidence. This isn't about defending a man. It's about defending the principle that accusations should be proven before they're treated as facts.

I had almost the exact same experience. After the first few episodes, I genuinely thought this could become one of my favorite BLs of the year. The investigation, the atmosphere, and the chemistry all worked so well together that it felt like the series knew exactly where it was going.

Then, somewhere around the middle, it seemed to lose confidence in its own story. Instead of letting the criminal plot naturally drive the ending, it shifted to a very familiar "I'll sacrifice our relationship without explaining anything" trope. Like you, I found it frustrating because these are adults. A single honest conversation would have solved most of the conflict.

What disappointed me the most wasn't that the story became more romantic—it was that the mystery, which had been the strongest part of the series, ended up feeling rushed and almost secondary. The father's sudden change of heart didn't feel earned either. If the writers had developed those emotional beats over several episodes instead of resolving them so quickly, I think the ending would have been much more satisfying.

It's a shame because the potential was definitely there. I still think the first half is excellent, which is probably why the second half felt even more disappointing.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I just wanted to step back from the emotions and look at the chronology, the evidence, and what was actually verifiable. Whatever anyone thinks of Kim Soo Hyun personally, I believe everyone deserves to be judged by facts rather than internet narratives. And like you, I sincerely hope Kim Sae Ron can finally rest in peace.

I could ask you the exact same question. You've spent days commenting on someone you clearly dislike, while I've spent time reading the case because I wanted to know whether the accusations actually held up. That's called being interested in a subject. If everyone stopped caring because "the celebrity doesn't know they exist," there would be no discussions, no reviews, no fan pages, and no criticism either. The difference is that I base my opinion on evidence, not headlines.

That's the second time you've attacked me instead of my arguments. First I was "trash," now I'm "paid." Still waiting for the verified evidence I asked for.

@oppa_ I actually agree with most of what you wrote, which is why I'm surprised you think we disagree. I never said criticism was illegal. I never said discussing a public controversy was illegal. In fact, my point was exactly the one you make in your last paragraph: people should distinguish between opinions, allegations and proven facts.

Where we differ is that many people here aren't saying, "I think he's suspicious" or "I don't trust him anymore." They're saying, "He's a pedophile," "He groomed her," "He extorted her," or "He's responsible for her death" as statements of fact. That's no longer just expressing an opinion.

You're also arguing against something I didn't say. I didn't claim every European or American commenter is going to be sued or extradited. I said people shouldn't assume they're legally untouchable simply because they're behind an MDL username or live overseas. Those are two very different claims.

Ironically, your own conclusion proves my point: "People should be careful, truthful, and distinguish between allegations, opinions, and proven facts." Exactly. If everyone in this thread had followed that standard from day one, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

AI detectors also say the U.S. Constitution and Shakespeare are AI-generated. If your best rebuttal is a website score instead of addressing the facts, I'll take that as a concession.

Funny how "that's AI" has become a substitute for actually addressing the evidence. Which part is factually wrong?

@Nan You're leaving out the second half of what he said. Yes, he admitted he denied their adult relationship at the time because he was afraid of the consequences for Queen of Tears, his colleagues and his career. He even called himself a coward for making that decision. But in the very same press conference, he also clearly denied ever dating Kim Sae Ron while she was a minor and rejected the grooming allegations.

So no, he did not "admit he lied" about everything. He admitted lying about an adult relationship. Those are two completely different things. You can't use his confession about one issue as proof that he secretly confessed to another issue he explicitly denied.

You're also saying "all data was confirmed by him himself," but that's simply not true. He never confirmed grooming, an underage relationship, or any sexual relationship before she became an adult. Those remain allegations, not admissions. If you're going to quote his press conference, quote all of it, not just the part that fits your conclusion.

@Per2seph7one Funny. Asking for evidence is now "being part of the problem"? If karma exists, then it also applies to people who publicly call someone a pedophile or criminal without verified evidence. Justice isn't based on who shouts the loudest. It's based on facts. If you disagree with my arguments, address them. Personal attacks don't prove your case.

@Potkjo You still haven't answered the only question that matters: where is the verified evidence? You keep telling everyone to watch YouTube videos and internet threads, but those are not evidence. They are claims. Evidence has to be authenticated, verified and withstand investigation. That's exactly why I spent weeks reconstructing the entire timeline myself instead of relying on social media. I looked at filming schedules, military service, agency records, public appearances, filming locations, career timelines and the chronology of both Kim Soo Hyun's and Kim Sae Ron's lives. I even wrote a long post about the inconsistencies in the grooming narrative. Read that first, then tell me where it doesn't make sense.

You keep calling him a pedophile, but I don't think you even understand what that word means. Compare this case with someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein systematically sought out underage girls, trafficked them, abused multiple victims over many years, and there was overwhelming evidence: victims, witnesses, documents, flight logs, financial records, photographs, testimony and criminal investigations. That's what a real sexual predator case looks like. Here, after more than a year of accusations, what do we actually have? No verified messages proving an underage relationship. No verified calls. No verified meetings. No verified witness saying they saw a secret relationship when she was a minor. Investigators have even challenged key evidence that had been presented publicly. Those two situations have nothing in common.

You also ignore Kim Sae Ron's actual situation. By every public account, she was dealing with financial pressure, depression and the consequences of the DUI case. None of that automatically proves she was the victim of grooming. She may very well have loved him more than he loved her. Relationships end every day because one person wants out. That's sad, but it isn't a crime.

What I find strange is that people now act as though Kim Soo Hyun alone is responsible for everything that happened afterward. Where was this outrage when Kim Sae Ron was being abandoned after her DUI? Why weren't people demanding compassion then? After her death, many suddenly needed someone to blame, and Kim Soo Hyun became the perfect target.

Look at another tragic case: Jonghyun from SHINee. When he died, people mourned him. They didn't decide that an ex-girlfriend must be criminally responsible simply because they had broken up. Yet here, people have done exactly that to Kim Soo Hyun despite never producing verified evidence that he was even in contact with Kim Sae Ron during the years many online narratives claim.

So I'll ask you again: when? how? and with what verified evidence? Not YouTube. Not edited timelines. Not anonymous posts. Actual evidence. Because after months of investigations, that's still the question nobody has been able to answer.

Exactly. One comment rarely tells the whole story. Investigators look for patterns: repetition, coordination, intent, and whether people knowingly kept spreading false allegations. That's the difference between an opinion and a campaign. If there was coordination, that's a completely different legal issue.

@Nan, @Potkjo, @NeoB, @Mia, @Rapunzel, @YangMoney127, @Masterxys, @Sanoya, @DeepKahk, @lushurou, @gongyoothirdleg, @khadz, @lovelymind, @ella... I honestly wonder whether some of you realize the legal risk you're taking by repeatedly posting statements like "he's a pedophile," "he groomed her," "he extorted her," or other criminal accusations as though they were established facts.

Many people think that because they're behind an MDL username, live in Europe or America, or are "just commenting," they're completely protected. That's simply not how the law works. If someone reports a sustained pattern of defamatory statements (like I do), a court can order platforms to preserve account information and, where legally justified, seek identifying information through the proper legal channels. Being in another country doesn't automatically make someone immune.

Depending on the country where you live, you could face a civil defamation lawsuit seeking financial compensation for reputational damage. That can mean paying not only damages but also your own legal fees and, in some jurisdictions, part of the claimant's costs as well. Even if you ultimately win, defending yourself can cost thousands or tens of thousands of euros or dollars.

If your comments go beyond expressing an opinion and involve knowingly spreading fabricated evidence, encouraging harassment, making threats, stalking, coordinating attacks, or profiting from false accusations, the consequences can become much more serious. Depending on the applicable laws, those acts may expose someone to criminal investigation. In the most serious cases, penalties can include substantial fines and, in some jurisdictions, imprisonment. International cooperation between law enforcement agencies is also possible where the legal requirements are met.

There is also a distinction many people seem to ignore. Saying, "I don't trust him anymore," is generally an opinion. Saying, "He is a pedophile," "He committed this crime," or "He groomed her," is a factual allegation. If you cannot prove those statements and they seriously damage someone's reputation, you may be held legally responsible for publishing them.

Ask yourselves whether a few angry comments on MDL are really worth the possibility of receiving a lawyer's letter, being identified through legal proceedings, spending years defending a lawsuit, paying significant damages, or facing criminal scrutiny if your conduct crossed the legal line. Social media often gives people a false sense of anonymity. Courts tend to see it very differently.

@16106004 This is an important point, but I'd add one clarification. Cross-border liability isn't unique to South Korea. If someone intentionally spreads defamatory content, fabricated evidence, threats, coordinated harassment or extortion across borders, many legal systems have mechanisms for international cooperation through MLATs, mutual legal assistance, and, in more serious cases, extradition requests. The key issue is the conduct, not the nationality of the person posting.

That said, simply criticizing a celebrity or expressing an opinion is not a crime. The legal threshold is much higher. Prosecutors must still prove the elements of the offence with evidence, and defendants retain the same due process rights as anyone else.

Regardless of whose side someone is on, that's a principle worth protecting: opinions are one thing; knowingly spreading false allegations, manipulated evidence or participating in coordinated harassment is another.

@chviranaa No. Nobody is pretending nothing happened.

A young woman died. Kim Soo Hyun's reputation and career were devastated. Millions of people formed opinions before the investigations were complete. Those are all real events.

The real question isn't whether "something happened." It's what actually happened, and what can be supported by evidence rather than assumptions.

Justice doesn't mean ignoring allegations. It also doesn't mean treating allegations as proven facts. If we care about the truth, we should be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads—even if it challenges our first impression.

@Nan That's your choice, and nobody has to support an actor they no longer trust. But the reasons you give are exactly what's disputed. Saying he "played with her," "extorted" her, "denied" her and "lied" about her presents allegations as established facts when they have never been established by a court or criminal investigation.

If your decision is based on uncertainty or personal discomfort, that's completely understandable. But if it's based on claims being proven true, the evidence simply isn't there. In fact, the investigation reportedly challenged key evidence that had been presented publicly, and the person who led the accusations is now facing criminal prosecution.

Choosing not to watch his work is a personal decision. Declaring him guilty of serious misconduct is a factual claim that still requires evidence.

The comparison with Michael Jackson isn't really about whether the cases are identical. It's about how public opinion can permanently damage someone's reputation before the evidence has been fully examined.

Looking at Kim Soo Hyun's case today, several things are objectively true. He has never been criminally charged with grooming, child sexual abuse or any related offence. The central allegations remain unproven. Meanwhile, investigators reportedly challenged key pieces of evidence that had been presented to the public, and the individual who publicly led the campaign against him is now facing criminal prosecution over their conduct.

None of that proves Kim Soo Hyun is a perfect person, nor does it answer every question about his private life. But it does mean that many of the statements repeated online as if they were established facts were never actually established.

Whatever anyone's opinion of Kim Soo Hyun, it's difficult to deny that the consequences have already been enormous. His reputation, endorsement deals, business relationships and major projects were severely affected long before investigators had finished examining the evidence. Even if he fully rebuilds his career, those lost months cannot be returned.

Justice requires the same standard for everyone: serious accusations should be supported by serious evidence. If new credible evidence ever proves otherwise, I'll accept it. Until then, conclusions should follow the evidence—not the other way around.

@Potkjo I did read your comment again. You're still making a very serious accusation without presenting evidence that supports it.

You say they "knew each other long before." That part isn't disputed. Kim Sae Ron entered the entertainment industry as a child and knew many adult actors, directors and producers. Simply knowing a minor through work is not evidence of pedophilia or grooming. If it were, countless actors who worked alongside child performers would fall under the same accusation, which is obviously absurd.

You then claim Kim Soo Hyun "waited" for her to become an adult. What verified evidence establishes that? Not speculation, not social media edits, but independently authenticated evidence. Investigators spent months examining this case. Despite that, Kim Soo Hyun has never been criminally charged with any sexual offence, and the person who publicly drove these allegations is now facing criminal prosecution over their conduct and the evidence they presented.

Finally, please stop using the word "pedophile" as a synonym for "older partner." Pedophilia has a specific clinical meaning: a primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children. A relationship with a post-pubescent teenager or an adult does not fit that definition, regardless of whether someone personally approves of the age gap. Precision matters, especially when accusing someone of one of the most serious crimes imaginable.

If credible evidence proving your claim is produced, I'll accept it. Until then, calling someone a "pedophile" based on assumptions is not evidence—it's an accusation.