Sunny Day

So true. Many believe that by remaining passive they are being neutral, but in reality, passivity only enables wrongdoing. Injustice may not touch you today, but none of us can know what tomorrow will bring.
As Martin Niemöller so powerfully reminded us: when we stay silent in the face of persecution, step by step, there will be no one left to defend us when our own turn comes. His words are not only a lesson from history but also a timeless warning, that silence in the face of injustice is complicity.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.
M. Niemöller

Yesterday, the 27th Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Woo In-seong) sentenced former lawmaker Kang, indicted on charges of disseminating false information under the Public Official Election Act, to a fine of 10 million won. Representative Kim was sentenced to a fine of 7 million won.
In my view, the sanctions imposed are largely symbolic, although it is unclear what penalties were originally sought by the prosecution. The court held that certain information could not be definitively established as false, which may explain the relatively lenient fines. Nevertheless, such an outcome raises concerns, as it risks encouraging defamatory conduct rather than effectively deterring it.
By contrast, in another recent case, the Busan District Court’s Criminal Division 7 (Presiding Judge Shim Hak-sik) handed down prison sentences to YouTubers who had spread false information regarding the Jeju Air incident at Muan International Airport in December of last year. On February 20, the court sentenced Defendant A (age 60) to three years’ imprisonment and Defendant B (age 71) to one year’s imprisonment, finding them guilty under the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation).
As far as I am aware, Kim Soo-hyun has likewise lodged a complaint against Gaseye*n/Gar0zero under the Information and Communications Network Act. The precedent of the Busan case may therefore be relevant, as it demonstrates the courts’ willingness to impose custodial sentences in cases involving the deliberate spread of false information online.
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/469/0000882539?type=journalists
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20250820106300004?section=society/all
https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-society/2025/08/20/CMBJOQ7TQ5B2TLZPKPFDRJBOFA/

In my opinion, his fans did a better job than his PR department.

It won't affect Gar0zero.
The principle of applying the more favorable law to the offender, also known as the principle of retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, is recognized under Korean criminal law. According to the Korean Criminal Act, when a law is amended after the commission of a crime, the new law shall apply if it is more favorable to the offender. Conversely, if the new law is less favorable, the previous, more lenient version will continue to apply to the defendant.
Therefore, if the criminal defamation law in Korea is amended to impose harsher penalties—such as higher fines, longer prison terms, or a broader scope of punishable conduct—the new, stricter provisions will not apply retroactively to acts committed before the amendment.

And now, everyone understands why those who were in possession of the evidence, namely KSR’s family, somehow “lost it”, while Gar0zero remains “clean as a tear”, having merely presented what the grieving family handed over. A perfect setup. Dark comedy at its finest.

I believe that’s exactly what she thought. There was no point in trying to imply that KSH was guilty, and the existence of a defamation case alone proves nothing. It was clear that I would eventually clarify this. I simply thought I had explained it several times already, but perhaps I wasn’t clear enough or sufficiently understandable.

Correct!

Because someone wrote to me below that in Korea you can file a defamation complaint even if it is true, I would like to clarify two aspects of a defamation complaint. Art. 307 of the Korean Criminal Act has two paragraphs. The first one provides for the punishment for defamation, a case that applies even if the statements are true, and the second paragraph provides for the case where what is said is not true.
Art. 307 Criminal Act
(1) A person who defames another by publicly alleging facts shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding five million won.
(2) A person who defames another by publicly alleging false facts shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding ten million won
If the complaint is made under the first paragraph, the only evidence required is that a public statement was made about a person. In KSH's case, the broadcasts on the H0verlab YouTube channel were sufficient evidence.
If the complaint is based on paragraph 2, that false statements have been made, the person making such a complaint must prove that they are false. He must therefore show what the truth is by any means of evidence.
In this second situation, the evidence presented publicly is expertly examined to prove that it is false.
KSH requested forensic expertise on the evidence presented by Gar0zero and KSR's family, resulting in no doubt that his complaint is formulated on paragraph 2. This is what I kept trying to highlight and this made me have some confidence in KSH, the fact that he requested expertise on all the evidence, which means that he filed a complaint for defamation by spreading false information. That means he wants to prove that all evidence presented by Gar0zero and KSR family are false.
@dead lilies thank you for making me think that this clarification was necessary.

Thanks for the completion

yes, that's right. For the first case, he can receive a suspended sentence. However, since there are multiple cases for the same crime, it is likely that in at least one of them he will not receive a suspended sentence, but punishment by execution in prison. I expect this to happen in KSH's case because he had a prosecution ban that he violated, which shows that suspending the sentence no longer serves its intended purpose—that is, to correct his behavior.

Finally, the first measures are being taken by those who should have reacted from the beginning.
The Press Ethics Committee issues a warning to 25 media outlets for reporting on a bill that included Kim Soo-Hyun's real name
At its 997th meeting, the commission issued a unanimous "caution" decision to 25 media outlets for violating Article 10, "Principles of Titles," and Article 11, "Respect for Honor and Credit," of the Code of Newspaper Ethics.
https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1008167586&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSENDhttps://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1008167586

Max Barry said: “People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are.”
Some don’t even need a profile page, they reveal everything just by haunting other people’s pages, thinking it’s somehow still about them.
The real comedy? Watching someone play the critic… while refreshing an idol’s page more religiously than the fans.👇

I know very well that in Korea, you can file a defamation complaint even if the statements are true. If you read carefully, you'll see that I mentioned this. What makes the difference is that KSH filed a defamation complaint based on the spreading of false information. That's why he requested an expert analysis of the evidence presented by KSR's family. Otherwise, the evidence should not have been expertly examined.

He’s not easily brought down, but defaming the current president may prove to be his greatest mistake. Even his background may not protect him from the legal consequences he now faces.

Although I believe Kim Sae Ron’s family did not support her as they should have at the appropriate time, I do not wish for them to receive a criminal conviction. However, there is a real and significant possibility that they may face a harsher legal outcome than Kim Se-ui in the defamation case involving Kim Soo Hyun.
From the beginning, I pointed out that if the Gar0zero Institute financially benefited from this scandal and the accusations prove to be false, the party most legally exposed would be KSR’s family.
Under Korean law, publicly defaming someone using false evidence is punishable by imprisonment. While first-time offenders may receive a suspended sentence, which includes a probationary period and a criminal fine, the conditions of suspension require that the convicted person does not reoffend during that period.
Unlike Kim Se-ui, KSR’s family would be first-time offenders. However, what raises serious legal concerns is the criminal complaint they themselves filed against Kim Soo Hyun. It is difficult to comprehend how a legal professional could have advised them to pursue such an action, especially when the evidence (I'm referring to the recording made with AI) they relied upon originated from a third party and had not been independently verified for authenticity.
By filing that complaint, they effectively exposed themselves to a second, more serious legal consequence: the offense of false accusation under Article 156 of the Korean Criminal Act, which applies when someone knowingly files a criminal complaint without legal grounds, intending to cause another person to be punished. The fact that they sought a criminal conviction against Kim Soo Hyun makes the act even more severe in the eyes of the law.
If it is further proven that they used false evidence, or worse, tampered with or concealed evidence, thereby obstructing justice, the applicable penalties increase significantly. When considered together with the original defamation charges, the combination of offenses may result in a custodial sentence that cannot be suspended. Even if a suspended sentence were granted, the civil damages could be substantial and potentially beyond their financial capacity to satisfy, a burden no family should have to bear after losing their child.
Aligning themselves with Gar0zero may well have been their most damaging decision.

First the verdict, then his public… if they won’t have unsubscribed already.

Even if sensationalism drives the publication of certain articles, it remains essential not to distort the truth, and certainly not to pursue profit at the cost of someone’s career and dignity.
Personally, I hope that the ordeal Kim Soo Hyun has been dragged into will inspire him to continue standing up against the destructive system that manipulates public perception and sidelines artists from their projects based on mistakes, rumors, or unverified claims.
More than just clearing his own name, I hope he chooses to use his voice and platform to push for lasting change, because real courage isn’t only about defending yourself, but about making sure others won’t have to go through the same injustice.

Of course, I had to answer!

I believe Kim Soo-hyun’s legal team acted with foresight in securing precautionary measures over some of Kim Se-ui’s assets, even if it involved covering certain legal expenses. Without such action, they might have faced the unpleasant scenario of having nothing left to enforce against.
This seems particularly prudent considering that Kim Se-ui is also facing legal complaints from figures such as President Lee Jae-myung, Tzuyang, and others.
At this rate, the day may come when Kim Se-ui, too, asks the public to pray for him, because after so many “celebrations,” the final bill might turn out to be far more than he bargained for.

As previously noted, a first-instance ruling is expected on August 20th in the case concerning the dissemination of false information via Hoverlab. Should Kim Se-ui and Kang Yong-seok be convicted, even in a non-final decision, such a verdict would carry significant legal and evidentiary weight in the defamation lawsuit initiated by Kim Soo-hyun.
A prior conviction for similar conduct (even pending appeal) may be taken into account by the court when assessing the credibility, intent, and pattern of behavior of the defendants. This would represent a major step forward in affirming the value of truth and the fundamental right of every individual to be protected against defamation.

Prosecutors seek prison sentences for YouTubers over falsehoods about Lee
The court is expected to deliver its first trial verdict on August 20 at 2:10 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/prosecutors-seek-prison-sentences-for-youtubers-over-falsehoods-about-lee/ar-AA1J2CS5
https://kbizoom.com/garo-sero-institute-false-claims-lee-jae-myung/