Sunny Day

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/

It is confirmed that all the malicious comments of those so-called vigilantes have a destructive effect and the results can be disastrous. It is time for this to stop.

Online Hate Drove Him to the Edge?
https://www.kdramastars.com/articles/136749/20250805/song-young-kyus-family-breaks-silence-after-sudden-death-online-hate-drove-him-edge.htm

The fact that Song Young Kyu was excluded from projects was a direct consequence of public opinion in Korea, an opinion that often does not forgive.
That is why I say again: Kim Soo Hyun’s case is no longer just about him. It reflects a broader problem in how k-society treats artists, holding them to unrealistic standards of perfection and punishing them harshly when those standards are not met.
Artists are expected to be flawless, yet they are human like anyone else. And those quick to judge: the public, the media, and even industry decision-makers, are far from perfect themselves.
As I’ve said before: if someone drives under the influence, the punishment provided by law is sufficient. Removal from artistic projects is not a legal consequence, it is a public verdict, without proportion and fairness.
And if we are truly committed to fairness, we must ask: should any citizen lose their job the moment they are accused, whether rightly or wrongly, before a court has spoken? If that feels unfair for others, then why is it considered acceptable when it comes to artists?

An example of a parent who gives up everything for his children. What a difference between him and KSR's family.
https://kbizoom.com/song-young-kyu-basement-living-family-dui-struggles/

While the criminal cases may take considerable time to investigate and resolve, the civil lawsuit concerning the unauthorized disclosure of personal information (such as the one KSH has filed against Gar*sero & comp.) is likely to be resolved more quickly. In Korea, public disclosure of private matters without consent, even if true, is punishable and can lead to civil liability, making such claims both serious and time-sensitive. The severity of the punishment depends on the nature of the facts disclosed and is significantly heavier if the information turns out to be false.

Seeing today’s heartbreaking news about Song Young Kyu, I sincerely hope it wasn’t a consequence of the anxiety over what might happen because of the DUI case, a case that had already cost him several projects, despite the fact that he was reportedly struggling financially due to the expenses of his daughters’ education.
Some time ago, I shared the song The Land of Happiness in memory of Lee Sun Kyun… and now, this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k5dGmp99kM&list=RD7k5dGmp99kM&start_radio=1&ab_channel=Carents

What sad news. A regrettable void is left behind and the memory that will live on through his work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k5dGmp99kM&list=RD7k5dGmp99kM&start_radio=1&ab_channel=Carents

I will now provide answers to several questions raised a few days ago, based on the currently available information and legal framework.
First, the police officers involved in the unauthorized disclosure of information from the Lee Sun Kyun's case have only been indicted as of June. This means the legal proceedings are still in their preliminary stage. In this case, the police officers are contesting the charges and any associated disciplinary or criminal sanctions. It is vital to underscore that no final judgment has been rendered yet.
Regarding Kim Soo Hyun and the Alleged Disappearance of Evidence.
The legal situation concerning the disappearance of evidence allegedly relevant to Kim Soo Hyun’s defense could still evolve, depending on the strategy adopted by his legal team. My analysis is limited to publicly known facts and cannot substitute a full legal assessment based on the complete case files and procedural documents.
1. What can happen to the police due to their inaction, which allegedly led to the destruction or theft of evidence? What steps should LKB (KSH's legal team) take? Which institution oversees the Korean police?
To answer properly, two key points must be distinguished:
- The initial police investigation team was replaced.
- The alleged disappearance of evidence occurred after this change.
Thus, responsibility may rest both with the initial team (for procedural delays and failure to seize evidence) and the new team, if it failed to act ex officio upon being informed of the potential evidence.
In such a case, Kim Soo Hyun is entitled to file a criminal complaint against the officers involved, under charges such as: abuse of office, negligence of duty and/or favoring the perpetrator (if bad faith or collusion is proven).
The complaint should be filed at the Prosecutor’s Office, which has initial jurisdiction over alleged misconduct by police officers.
However, these charges are only sustainable if KSH initially included the accusation of presenting false evidence as true in his defamation complaint. If this was not explicitly mentioned, the legal basis may be weaker, though amendments or supplementary complaints could potentially be filed.
The criminal liability of police officers depends on the nature of the omission.

2. Can those responsible for presenting false evidence avoid criminal liability, despite having used that evidence publicly for months?
No, they cannot completely avoid criminal liability. However, the legal qualification of the offense will influence the outcome.
If individuals (e.g., media figures or the accuser’s family) knowingly presented falsified evidence, this could amount to defamation by fabricated evidence, slanderous denunciation and/or obstruction of justice
These are cumulative offenses, and the court may apply concurrent sentencing, leading to a heavier penalty than for simple defamation. This is the legal avenue currently being exploited by figures such as Garosero and, potentially, the family of KSR.
In the case of KSR’s family, the accusation that KSH engaged in an intimate relationship with a minor (allegedly under the age of 16) is particularly serious, as they are required to present supporting evidence. Otherwise the family may be held criminally liable for slanderous denunciation. Even if they subsequently withdraw the complaint, criminal liability persists, since false accusations of this nature are prosecuted ex officio under the applicable law.

3. What would be the most suitable next steps for LKB?
Given that the evidence in question was never formally submitted to the police, the disappearance cannot be treated as destruction of evidence already in the custody of authorities. Therefore, KSH may consider the following legal strategy:
I. File a formal complaint for intentional concealment or destruction of evidence, evasion of justice, and potentially, misleading judicial authorities.
This approach creates procedural pressure: unless KSR’s family reports the “theft” or “loss” of the evidence themselves, their silence may be construed as willful obstruction of justice.
II. Initiate separate criminal complaints for the following offenses:
• false statements regarding the disappearance of evidence;
• slanderous denunciation (knowingly filing or supporting false criminal accusations);
• obstruction of justice, through the concealment or manipulation of potentially exculpatory material.
In Gar*ser*’s case, while he may argue that he acted in good faith based on information received, reckless or negligent dissemination of defamatory material, particularly without verification, may still give rise to both civil and criminal liability.
The outcome of these legal battles will depend significantly on how the current complaints are framed and whether the legal team chooses to amend, supplement, or initiate new complaints based on recent developments.

Leaving aside the fact that such a discussion has no place here, it seems you have no intention of stopping your heretical remarks, fueled by a kind of feminism that has no reverence or fear of God. Please stop making declarations as if you know God or Scripture, because not only do you clearly not know God, you also have no real understanding of what the Bible teaches. Worse still, you have the audacity to use the Word of God to promote personal ideology that directly contradicts His truth.
None of the examples you gave mention minor girls, those were your additions, not found in the biblical text. Deuteronomy 22:28–29, which you reference so confidently, must be read in the legal and historical context of ancient Israel. That passage is tied to the verses before it and distinguishes between consensual and non-consensual acts, including whether or not a girl cried out for help. Presenting it as divine permission for abuse is a gross misrepresentation and a deliberate twisting of Scripture.
Perhaps you should also read about Rahab, a prostitute who, through faith and repentance, became part of the genealogical line of Jesus Christ. That alone contradicts your portrayal of God as favoring only men or condemning women. The God you speak of is not the God of Scripture, it’s an imaginary construct, shaped by misunderstanding and perhaps painful experience, but it is not the God who revealed Himself through Christ.
As I’ve said before: the Bible is divided into two covenants—an Old Testament (the old will), and a New Testament (the new will). Just like in legal terms, when a new will is written, the old one is no longer valid. The New Testament is the living covenant. The Old Testament is prophetic: it reveals the coming of Jesus Christ: first as Savior, then as Judge. His first coming is shown in the Gospels, and His return is revealed in the Book of Revelation.
Furthermore, the Old Testament makes us aware of sin through the Law, especially the Ten Commandments. It reveals the human condition. But it is the New Testament that reveals God’s full character: grace, mercy, truth, justice, all embodied in Lord Jesus Christ, who lived among us.
If you want to understand God, read the New Testament. Look at how Lord Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11). That is the true image of God. He did not deny the existence of sin, but He reminded everyone that no one is without it. Sin includes not just actions, but also lying, envy, pride, hatred, sins we all carry.
And again, look at Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, in agony, still taking care of His mother and praying for those who crucified Him. That is God, and He is nothing like the false image you’ve described. If you truly want to challenge someone to prove that God values men more than women, I invite you to try to find that in the New Testament. Bring examples from the life and words of The Lord Jesus, not out-of-context fragments from the Old Testament twisted to dishonor Him.
And let me clarify one final point: you claimed it is heresy to say what Jesus would or wouldn’t say. That is simply false. If someone knows Scripture and knows God, they are led by the Holy Spirit, who reminds them what is written. This is not heresy, it is Biblical truth (John 14:26). Jesus is the Word made flesh. Knowing His Word is knowing His voice.
Finally, while affirming an ideology and accusing others of bias and hypocrisy, your own message is directed at a woman, and it clearly disrespects and attempts to ridicule her, something God never does.