Sunny Day

Just like chomsky8 liked them?

It has been officially announced that legal action will be taken to hold accountable those who continue to spread the false allegations made by Kim Se-ui. Below is a possible defense for those who will be accused: lack of mental capacity due to medical reasons.
Cognitive Fixation.
When a person suffers from cognitive fixation, their mind rejects any alternatives. If challenged to justify their position but lacking data or proof , several typical behaviors emerge:
• The Dunning-Kruger Effect: The person tends to overestimate their knowledge. Despite lacking solid arguments, their inner certainty is absolute.
• Cognitive Dissonance: Confronted with evidence or arguments that contradict their beliefs, the person's mind refuses to process the new reality and locks onto the single fragment of information they deem "safe."
• Defense Mechanisms: Due to a lack of rational arguments, the discourse shifts from logic to emotion, personal attacks (ad hominem), or obsessive repetition.
• Rejection of Evidence: Facts, statistics, or clear evidence are labeled as "false," "manipulated," or irrelevant.
• Shifting to Attack or Victimization: When completely out of logical counterarguments, the person becomes verbally aggressive or plays the victim.
One of the causes of cognitive fixation is functional illiteracy: the inability to structure a logical argument based on the Premise → Evidence → Conclusion.
Consequently, such a person believes that having their statements disproven represents a loss of status. Repetition acts as a protective shield for an ego built on illusions.
Driven by the Ad Nauseam logical fallacy, such a person harbors a subconscious conviction that if he/she repeats something often enough, it will somehow become true or will wear others out, providing an illusion of victory.
A person suffering from cognitive fixation will continue their attacks despite official evidence, this being an attempt to cause reputational damage. The individual has invested so much pride or emotional energy into that accusation that admitting they were wrong would mean the collapse of their own identity or self-image. Because they could not win through legal or logical means, such a person will try to achieve a "public execution" in the court of public opinion, hoping that if they repeat the accusation often enough, some of the mud thrown will stick to the victim.
For such a person, the idea they propagate has ceased to be a mere opinion and has become the central pillar of their identity. If they were to stop attacking and admit they were wrong, it would mean acknowledging before everyone that they harassed innocent people, that they were lied to, or that they wasted time and energy on a lie. For a fragile ego, this collapse is unacceptable, so they choose to attack first to avoid having to look inward.

Any resemblance to real persons/users is purely coincidental.

What drama are you watching?

If you really know, then you manage to pretend very well.

Unfortunately, they took on a process far too early.

I agree that based on what has been made public, no reference was made to an organized criminal group, but I didn't make such a statement either. Also, let’s not forget that the individuals mentioned are named as suspects. Since there are other suspects involved in committing the same offense, this fact implies the commission of a crime through the participation of multiple individuals. Now, what is the participation of multiple people for the purpose of committing an offense? Some individuals may be co-perpetrators, others merely accomplices, but this does not exclude the idea of a criminal group. Furthermore, if you read closely, you will see that I stated the transfer was made through the prism of procedural rules regarding jurisdiction, which determine the transfer of a case to a court competent to try the act in relation to its specific nature, and a three-judge panel takes on more serious cases. In this specific case, it was precisely my professional opinion that the acts for which Kim Se-ui was sent to trial do not fit into a typical case tried by a three-judge panel, one explanation potentially being precisely the formation of an organized criminal group, which represents an aggravating factor. I took into account Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The legal provisions regarding the organization and functioning of the court are supplemented by the incident procedural legal provisions, distinguishing between civil and criminal proceedings. Also, let us not forget that Kim Se-ui's case was severed because detention was urgent, whereas such a measure was not required for the other individuals. The continuation of Kim Se-ui's detention remains a reality, which shows that the courts deemed the measure necessary and that the charges in the indictment are likewise real. I did not present this fact as a verdict, but merely included it in the analysis of the severity of the offense's classification, not through the accumulation of offenses, but by extracting from the indictment those aspects that will ultimately complete the case. But even this analysis was mine; reading closely, you will notice this because I referred to an older message of mine. Therefore, without having any issue with your observations, I believe they could have been issued only if they were correct and necessary.

Apparently, distinguishing between a hypothesis, legal presumptions ,an inference and a proven fact is the part you find most difficult. So, keep having fun. There’s no point in leafing through treatises on legal procedure; they won’t be of any use to you anyway. After all, you can have fun in life without a reason.

The way this person conducts themselves on this page is clearly intended to make an impression. Unfortunately, their observations have no ...basis. Still, given this individual’s supposedly multifaceted “expertise,” I look forward to witnessing their next “feat” on this page.
This person's attitude is worthy of being cited as an example in the analysis of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I wonder which professional field they will venture into next.

You continue to criticize a version of my text that I did not write.

I did not state that the indictment, the detention decision or the transfer to a three-judge panel constituted a conviction or a judicial finding that every allegation was true. I analyzed those procedural developments under the applicable legal framework and drew conclusions about what they could reasonably indicate regarding the subsequent direction of the case. Presenting a legal inference as though it were a claim of an already established judicial fact is a misrepresentation of my argument.

The fact that the court did not publicly state the precise reason for the transfer does not invalidate an analysis based on the applicable jurisdictional and procedural provisions. Nor does it mean that the only permissible analysis is a repetition of what has appeared in the press. A court’s public explanation and the legal consequences that may be inferred from the procedural framework are not the same thing.

Your statement that I connected the transfer definitively to an aggravated criminal-group charge is also inaccurate. I identified that classification as the likely legal trajectory based on the indictment and the alleged participation of several persons. I did not present it as a conclusion already announced by the court. The fact that the case was subsequently transferred does not entitle you to rewrite my prediction as a categorical factual claim.

The point concerning the legal-assistance agreement is not speculative. The agreement must identify its subject matter and the legal services to be provided, and the fee must correspond to that agreed subject matter. A later complaint cannot be treated retroactively as an action covered by the original agreement if it was not included in its defined scope. A subsequent amendment or new mandate would be a separate legal basis; it would not alter what the original contract covered.

The 30% fee is relevant for precisely this reason. If the fee was calculated as a percentage of an amount recovered, the agreement must identify the legal services and the recovery to which that fee related. A criminal complaint filed later cannot retroactively supply the original contract with a different subject matter.

I also did not claim that the MIDO judgment automatically determines every other case. I referred to it as a precedent in the ordinary sense of a first relevant decision capable of influencing similar proceedings, not as binding precedent. Again, you are correcting a proposition that I did not make.

You are entitled to disagree with my interpretation. You are not entitled to replace my analysis with a more extreme version, refute that version, and then present the result as an objective correction of my text. If you wish to respond, address the claims I actually made.

And one more point regarding Boo Ji-seok: if you interpret the later complaint based on the audio recording as having been made under that original legal assistance agreement, then what exactly was the 30% fee contingent upon? How would a fee structured as 30% of any recovery relate to a criminal complaint, particularly when no civil claim for damages had yet been pursued?

I’m not sure you actually read my article carefully, or whether you had already decided what you wanted to say before reading it.
Regarding Boo Ji-seok, what I wrote was precise: he did not file or initiate any complaint or judicial proceedings against Kim Soo Hyun under that legal assistance agreement. The later complaint, filed after the audio recording emerged, was not known when the agreement was signed and cannot retroactively be treated as an action taken under that agreement.
As for the rest, I accurately presented what follows from the prosecutor’s indictment and what can reasonably be inferred from the court’s rejection of Kim Se-ui’s challenge to his detention. The indictment details the involvement of additional participants, and certain aggravated offenses involving criminal groups fall within the jurisdiction of a three-judge panel; hence my view regarding the transfer of the case. Whether that view proves correct remains to be seen.
Nowhere did I state that the court had already rendered a verdict on these matters.
Regarding the MIDO ruling, I expressly presented it as a precedent, while the postponement of the other compensation cases pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings is an indication that those courts are also considering the same underlying issues.
Therefore, while I have no problem with legitimate disagreement, your comments largely address claims that I simply did not make.

It’s fascinating how confidently you mistake legal ignorance for legal logic. What you dismiss as “theory” is, in fact, a basic part of legal reasoning: courts routinely assess circumstantial evidence and indicia and draw reasoned inferences from established facts, conduct and reactions.
You may call such an inference a “theory” in ordinary language, but that does not make it a mere personal opinion. Courts routinely reach conclusions from circumstances even where no direct evidence exists.
So by all means, keep laughing at “theories.” Just make sure you don’t discover in court that some of those “theories” are called legal presumptions.

I haven't prepared, but I will!

You demand “tangible proof” because you don't understand that courts routinely rely on circumstantial evidence and judicial presumptions.
In law, this is called a praesumptio hominis based on id quod plerumque accidit. Judges use precisely this type of reasoning: logical human behavior and economic self-interest are known facts from which unknown facts are inferred.
A judge will not laugh at presumptions (or theories, as you call them) because this is precisely how legal reasoning operates. My Way’s logic is correct.

Correct!

Reading the details of the lawsuits now, I can’t help but be amused. The companies are seeking damages and the case is being heard on September 18, while KSH is at the TMA on September 19, as a proof that the public and fans are waiting for him. What ruling could the judges possibly hand down?

Well pointed out!

Well said!

I like the reaction. You really know how to have fun.

I’m actually waiting for the HighEnd release and the pictorial to come out so I can see the reaction online. I’m convinced that HighEnd didn’t make this decision until they already had the impact results, but I’m still curious about how the “professional haters” operate.