Sunny Day

I haven’t had time yet, but in the coming days I will post information about who he (Gar*ser* guy) is and what family he comes from, so that everyone reading the news can understand what and who is behind it. He has no intention of respecting the court’s decision

I haven’t been able to verify this information, but I’m sharing what I found about the YouTube channel that made various accusations against Kim Soo Hyun, including claims of criminal acts.

“Kim Se-ui, after asset seizure, faces ‘Gasyeon’ suspension? Eun Hyun-jang: “Will hold shareholders’ meeting to dismiss him”
Reporter: Seo Seok-a
Date: June 25, 2025, 18:06
"On the 25th, Eun Hyun-jang shared on his YouTube channel’s community tab that “there’s been another court ruling today. To sum it up in one sentence, the court once again ruled that my shareholder status regarding Gasyeon remains valid,” along with a photo of the ruling.
Eun Hyun-jang also said, “Yesterday, I sent a certified letter requesting former lawyer Kim to disclose the accounting records, bank transaction history, and card usage details.” He added that Kim Se-ui has consistently refused these requests and that the court once again ruled that Eun’s shareholder status remains valid despite Kim’s objections.
Earlier this year, Eun Hyun-jang argued through his YouTube channel that the ‘Jang’s God’ content was fabricated by CEO Kim’s YouTube channel ‘Garosero Research Institute’ and that he was defamed. Eun claimed that last November 28, he purchased 40,000 shares of Garosero Research Institute at tens of millions of won. Eun stated he bought 20,000 shares directly and received the remaining 20,000 shares from Kang Yong-seok, a lawyer and co-founder of Garosero Research Institute, in May 2023. He added that the court also recognized his shareholder status recently.
Additionally, on the 12th of the same month, Eun Hyun-jang said through his YouTube channel that the court accepted his request to seize six bank accounts under Kim’s name related to Gasyeon and approved a seizure of approximately 120 million won.
Meanwhile, Kim Se-ui’s side recently filed additional lawsuits against Kim’s representative and the actor for defamation over defamation claims.
On the 24th, Eun Hyun-jang again sent a certified letter through a lawyer requesting disclosure of Gasyeon’s past five years of accounting records, bank statements, and card usage. He stated that if Kim Se-ui ignores this again, he will hold a shareholders’ meeting to dismiss Kim Se-ui. He warned Kim to step down as CEO of ‘Garosero Research Institute’.
According to Eun Hyun-jang, if Kim is removed from the CEO position, he will not be able to run live broadcasts on the channel nor receive donations through those broadcasts. With Kim’s assets already seized, there are growing predictions that he may lose control of Gasyeon as well.”
https://www.dogdrip.net/642263353

I know RuxiTS posted a link to the same news, but I thought this explains it in more detail.

OK. I’ll take the time to show exactly who this person is, even though the information is public and easy to find. There are just more nuances that have come to light through his recent actions

When you want to share a personal reflection, just say clearly that it’s your opinion, don’t disguise it as a balanced or objective viewpoint while subtly implying guilt or trying to steer the conversation under the pretext of ‘ethical debate.’
You say you didn’t intend to lecture anyone on ethics or speak from a legal standpoint, yet you ended your comment by claiming ‘the presumption of innocence doesn’t mean we should suppress critical thinking or ethical debate.’ That is a moral stance, and you used it to indirectly accuse those who defend Kim Soo Hyun of lacking critical thinking or ethics. If you don’t want your words read as an ethics lecture, don’t phrase them as one.
From your message it’s clear that you imply guilt, you talk about him already having ‘a stain,’ but you don’t specify what you mean. This only fuels vague condemnation with no proof, which is exactly the problem here. For you it may be a ‘reasonable doubt,’ but for the fans who defend him, this is a matter of principle: defamation and slanderous accusations have real consequences. This is not blind fanaticism, it’s insisting that someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
As a citizen, I cannot accept this new habit of reckless accusations and trial by rumor, often pushed by opportunistic YouTubers and media outlets. If we want a civilized society, we cannot accept defamation as normal. The presumption of innocence is not optional, it’s a fundamental right and it should persist until a court says otherwise.
And yes, by insisting he ‘already has a stain,’ you do affirm guilt, whether you admit it or not. If that ‘stain’ is about him initially denying an old relationship, that’s not a crime, many people, including you and me, aren’t always fully open about private matters for various reasons. That doesn’t make him guilty of the serious things he’s being accused of now. If you read the actual messages between KSR and her manager, it’s clear there’s much we don’t know, so no one should pretend to have all the facts.
Finally, you mention ‘critical thinking,’ but you ignore the fact that the real aggressors here have been the ‘so-called haters’ who attack, insult and bully other users to silence any KSH fan. Take the time to read all the messages before you judge who is really fueling this toxic atmosphere.
Your discomfort with how this issue is being discussed should not be directed at Kim Soo Hyun’s fans, they are doing exactly what any responsible person should do: upholding the presumption of innocence, which is an absolute right under any fair legal system.

Such an excuse is not acceptable in the case of journalism professionals.
“Journalists should take a sceptical view of every piece of information shared with them. They should not blindly trust contacts – even if those contacts have proved reliable in the past. This could lead to a cosy relationship that results in you dropping your guard, compromising your standards and publishing or broadcasting incomplete or unreliable information.”
https://ijnet.org/en/story/fact-checking-tips-journalists
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/fact-checking-in-journalism

Very interesting article. Thanks

It was just a scream of desperation. Don’t judge her, there’s no human being who doesn’t make mistakes in difficult situations.

It’s wrong to dislike her. Trust me, her situation was more tragic than you can imagine. And sadly, people often repress their emotions and take revenge on those they know aren't actually hurting them. She did the same thing...

Normally, there should be evidence, otherwise, not only is the defamation confirmed, but so is the slanderous denunciation. Unfortunately, only KSR’s family will bear the consequences. Anyone who truly knows who Gar*sero is understands that there’s a real chance he won’t face any repercussions. But I believe you all know who he is, what family he comes from, and so on.

Your message, which claims to be “lacking subjectivism,” seeks to appear objective, logical, clear, and balanced. So let’s begin, just as we will end, with ethics, the very concept you invoked at the close of your statement.
Ethics, as defined by philosophical and academic sources, is the systematic study of what is morally right and wrong. It is not based on feelings or public sentiment, but on reasoned principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_(disambiguation)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ethical

Ethics means, at its core, avoiding harm, even when expressing disagreement. If this is truly an ethical debate, then let’s hold everyone, including the accusers, to ethical standards.
Unfortunately, this is no longer just a misunderstanding or a “dispute”, a public war was initiated by Gar*sero and KSR’s family when they chose to publicly accuse a person of serious misconduct. Once those accusations were broadcasted, a line was crossed. Not once, but repeatedly, up to and including accusations of incitement to murder. This is not mere defamation; this is public criminal accusation, without a verdict, without due process.
Let’s recall: Gar*sero’s statement included the shocking claim that the FBI was somehow involved or confirming suspicions. That was refuted by the FBI itself. So, again, where is the ethical foundation of these public statements?
A criminal complaint was in fact filed against Kim Soo Hyun. And what is the purpose of such a complaint? To lead to a conviction. If the family of KSR truly sought justice, they should have begun with that path, through legal institutions, not public platforms. Then, if the authorities failed to act, they could have brought it to public attention. That would have been the ethical route.
But they chose the opposite. Why?
Was it because they calculated the risk, expecting Korean public opinion to pressure KSH into a public apology, regardless of guilt? A tactic used before, one might add. Had he apologized, it would have ended quietly, with media traction bringing attention, subscribers, and revenue to Gar*sero’s channel. This is not just speculation; it’s a reasonable doubt based on the unfolding of events.
But according to his own statement, KSH refused to apologize for something he says he did not do. Why? Could it be because he is telling the truth?
So then, what is the truth, and how can it be demonstrated?
The truth must rest on evidence. What did the KSR family base their accusations on? They had proof at the beginning, that same proof must now be examined. But they now refuse to submit that evidence for verification. Why?
They publicly damaged someone's reputation with that alleged proof. If they were confident, they would offer it for forensic examination to validate their claims. Their refusal suggests awareness of the potential consequences, slanderous denunciation, a serious legal offense. Kim Soo Hyun has already filed a complaint of this nature.
So why withhold the evidence now?
Observing these things is not about supporting or opposing someone, it’s about trying to reach an objective conclusion.
Your message says those posting negative messages about KSH aren’t haters, but supporters of KSR’s family. That’s a flawed argument. Support implies reasoned advocacy, not blind repetition of accusations. Most of these posts do not defend KSR’s family with arguments or evidence, they attack KSH and anyone who disagrees, often in vulgar, aggressive, or bullying tones.
You conflate that behavior with “supporting a cause.” But what you’re seeing is not support, it’s harassment. There’s a major difference between rational support and online mobbing. Can you honestly not distinguish between the two?
You accuse KSH supporters of “obsessive defense.” But is it not ethical to defend someone until proven otherwise? That defense, until judgment, harms no one. But derogatory accusations, spread publicly, do real harm to reputation, mental health, and the presumption of innocence.
You also claim that presumption of innocence does not mean we should believe KSH.
But that’s exactly what the principle of presumption of innocence means: in dubio pro reo. Until a court decides otherwise, he is presumed innocent. This is not just legalism, it is a moral and ethical imperative.
And no, that doesn’t automatically make the KSR family liars. But that’s why everyone expects them to present their proof for verification, especially now that the legal route is active. If they don’t, their allegations remain unfounded.
You say there are “elements that raise reasonable doubts about KSH.” Fine. Then list them. And then list the doubts about KSR’s family and Gar*sero’s methods. Compare them honestly. That is how ethical reasoning works: weigh both sides.
You also said that KSH’s supporters act with “moral superiority” as if they wield “the truth” and the law. Well, I'm not a fan of KSH, but yes, I speak confidently based on legal standards. That’s not pride, it’s professionalism.
What your message tries to do is subtle: to shame or silence those who write in defense of a person who, legally, is still innocent. That is not ethical discourse, that’s rhetorical intimidation masked as balance.
You say this is an ethical discussion? Then live up to it.
And I’ll end where I began—with ethics.
Ethics requires integrity, fairness, and the courage to apply the same standard to everyone. Freedom of speech is protected, but when it is used to harm, it ceases to be ethical.
That’s not debate. That’s simply bad intention, without any ethical justification.

This whole situation has degenerated because they didn’t expect such a reaction, and now, somehow, they are cornered by their own lies. They’re trying to escape by making remarks like “talentless,” “old,” and so on. It’s just a way to divert attention to another subject, one that won’t put them under pressure or expose them further.

I don’t know whether to post the phone messages presented by Mr. K. There are a lot of them, but they clearly reveal KSR’s condition and what she was going through. She is not to be blamed, anyone could have made mistakes in such circumstances. However, what I previously wrote about her treatment is confirmed: she was indeed undergoing psychiatric treatment. And it’s important to note that psychiatric treatment for depression can, in some cases, contribute to suicidal thoughts or behavior, especially in vulnerable individuals or in the early stages of treatment.

Also, Kim Soo Hyun’s Philippines FC post a message a few days ago.
“Trending Party Rest Days.
Here's a gentle update regarding our rest days this week.
On June 20 (Fri) and June 21 (Sat), we'll be taking a break from our usual Trending Party
activities. Please take this time to rest, recharge, and care for your body and mind.
On June 22 (Sun), we'll be hosting our fourth casual watch event in a Teleparty-style format
for those who'd like to join. This time, we'll be watching One Ordinary Day-a gripping and emotionally intense drama that showcases one of Soo Hyun's most powerful performances.
His subtle expressions, the raw vulnerability, and the quiet strength he portrays in this role
are truly unforgettable.
Let's revisit this masterpiece together and witness the depth of his acting once again.
We'll share more details on the day of the event.”

One of Mu Hyul's message reminded me of situations involving certain actors, where rumors surfaced just as their new dramas were being released.
There can certainly be a form of competition or "battle" between film production companies when they release movies or dramas around the same time. While it's not a direct or physical confrontation, the rivalry is clear, they're competing for audience attention, box office revenue, and streaming viewership.
This leads me to wonder: could any production company have played a role in the recent media lynching of Kim Soo Hyun? It’s worth questioning, especially if their own projects were at risk of being overshadowed by the release of his high-profile drama. I think in Kim Soo Hyun's case, it's more than that, but it's interesting to consider that aspect.
It’s also striking how false rumors or accusations often coincide with the release dates of certain dramas or films, or even emerge just before them. For those who remain skeptical, I suggest doing personal research. I did so in the case of Park Hae Jin, and I ‘ve wrote earlier on this page.
In addition, it's common in the Korean entertainment industry for celebrities to keep their relationships private (sometimes for years) before making any public announcements. This can stem from a desire to protect their privacy, fear of fan backlash, contractual obligations, or even concern over potential media scandals. Actor Namkoong Min and his wife are a good example; they reportedly dated for several years before getting married, with their relationship largely unknown to the public until the wedding announcement.
Those working in the industry are fully aware of these dynamics. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise, or be seen as a disappointment, when a past relationship isn’t publicly acknowledged, especially if it has already ended.
These patterns raise important questions: How much of what the public sees is manipulated by industry competition? Could the timing of negative media coverage be more than a coincidence? And to what extent do rumors and scandals serve as tools in a deeper, hidden rivalry within the entertainment business?
I repeat, the media lynching of Kim Soo Hyun involves many other aspects. But perhaps this was an opportunity for some to prolong the scandal for their own purposes.

Thank you, Tana. This article is truly valuable, especially because it includes messages exchanged between Kim Sae Ron and Mr. K, who supported her during the final part of her life. These messages confirm what I have previously stated: suicidal thoughts were not new for her, and Kim Soo Hyun’s denial of their relationship around the time Queen of Tears was released could not have been the cause of her suicide.
The article also highlights the personal struggles she was facing, particularly the lack of interest from her own family, a detail I hadn’t expected, but which, in hindsight, is consistent with the depth of her depression. Mr. K notes that Kim Sae Ron was receiving psychiatric treatment, which, as is known, can sometimes initially intensify suicidal thoughts if not closely monitored. Although such medication may eventually help, the early stages of treatment require careful supervision.
The article provides a fuller context that dispels speculation and reinforces that her struggles were long-standing and complex, rooted in personal and psychological distress rather than a single triggering event.
“However, Ms. Kim Sae-ron suffered from repeated self-harm, financial difficulties, failed comeback plans, violence from her American ex-husband, and divorce.
And eventually suffered severe pain until death.”

Thank you, Athena, for your message. Everyone is free to support Kim Soo Hyun as they believe. But be prepared for inappropriate reactions, some see such messages as a kind of ex*rcism. In the end, what’s inside people always finds a way out.

You're absolutely right. This is often what separates a successful actor from a mediocre one. Talent matters, but so do smart project choices.

If you research his career, you'll notice that the negative articles often coincided with the release of some of his films.
The first rumors about Park Hae-jin evading military service surfaced in 2010, shortly after his debut. These rumors continued to resurface over time. However, after a police investigation, it was officially concluded that he was exempt from military service due to legitimate health reasons.
Further controversy arose in 2016–2017, around the time the dramas Cheese in the Trap and Man to Man were released. He was accused of having worked as a host in a host bar. Eventually, it was confirmed that these allegations were false. Despite this, the rumors negatively impacted his career at the time.
On September 10, 2022, Park Hae-jin was rumored to have been arrested for drug use. This coincided with the airing of the drama From Now On, Showtime!. However, the police quickly issued an official statement clarifying that he was not involved and revealed the identity of the actual actor implicated in the case. Still, the mere association with such a rumor was damaging to his image.
In 2023, with the release of the crime thriller The Killing Vote, Park Hae-jin’s popularity rose significantly. However, this renewed attention also brought his past controversies back into the spotlight.
In conclusion, Park Hae-jin’s career has been repeatedly shadowed by baseless rumors that conveniently surface around the release of his major projects. While none of the accusations against him have held up under scrutiny, they have nonetheless affected public perception and his professional trajectory. This pattern highlights a troubling aspect of the media landscape, where sensationalism and rumor-chasing often overshadow fact-based journalism.

Thank you for the recommendations. I agree that in this field, more than in most, success depends not only on hard work but also on audience reception. No film or drama producer would cast an actor without believing in their ability to connect with the audience.
I also agree with your point about Park Hae Jin’s role in My Love from the Star. He, too, faced harsh criticism, particularly accusations of evading military service. Despite proving he had repeatedly attempted to enlist but was unable to do so, the negative comments persisted. When The Killing Vote was released, new rumors about him surfaced.
In response, he posted:
“I confront my reflection, a canvas of my journey. Each flaw tells a story, each scar a lesson, reminding me that the beauty of growth lies in embracing my true self.”
This kind of journalism is deeply harmful. Media often wait for moments of heightened public interest, such as a film release, to publish "revelations" that lead to public backlash.
Every profession deserves respect. For actors, it’s incredibly difficult to transform from one role to another and, more importantly, to stand out. It requires immense effort. As Lee Dong Wook once said, "it's hard to have a personal life," and when faced with negative comments, it’s even harder to find the strength to prepare for the next role.
We see them shining under the spotlight, but behind that is relentless hard work.
Ad augusta per angusta.

Another form of bullying: media lynching!
Seeing the number of negative articles about Kim Soo Hyun, although they essentially repeat the same so-called news, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a case of media lynching.
Reaching the conclusion that this is a case of media lynching, I set out to learn more about the subject. Here are the findings of my research.
Media lynching is a non-journalistic media operation (particularly aggressive, widespread, and sometimes prolonged), carried out by one or more media outlets, either in coordination or acting independently, with a premeditated intent to target an individual, typically a public figure, in order to discredit and destroy their credibility and reputation. The goal and motivation of media lynching are to eliminate someone from the public stage (or simply from a specific position, structure, etc.) who hinders or threatens the satisfaction of a certain interest, whether private or group-based; or who, for various reasons or interests, or even accidentally, has become a public enemy.
At the level of a society or community (national or local), media lynching is the most aggressive expression of the force and pride of the media: the so-called "Fourth Estate." While often seen as the fourth power in a democracy, in reality, the media holds an unofficial position within the democratic system. Precisely because of its unofficial status and its constitutionally subordinate relationship to the three official powers of democracy: the legislative, executive, and judicial, the media sometimes feels the need to express not only its frustration over its lack of legal authority but also its immense influence, seeking to intimidate, deter, or gain the respect of the other three powers.
Naturally, one might ask: what or who enables the media to wield such destructive power and, by extension, to carry out media lynchings?
On the one hand, public opinion, in whose name the “Fourth Estate” claims to act and to which it appeals in order to legitimize its “media justice.”
On the other hand, the public image of an institution or individual. “Today, image is everything,” says Matt Haig in a work dedicated to branding and public image.
It’s simply about the public's perception. It’s easy to understand who can strengthen or alter public perception of a politician, judge, or actor, or, to put it another way, who has the power to muddy otherwise clear waters.
It’s not hard to see why media lynching is so terrifying, especially considering that its repercussions in South Korea have often been among the most tragic.
Over 100 years ago, Gustave Le Bon, in The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, recognized that “all that strongly impresses the imagination of crowds presents itself under the shape of a startling and clear image.” At the same time, he noted that “it is not facts in themselves that strike the popular imagination, but the way they are presented. These facts must evoke, through a kind of condensation, a vivid image that seizes and obsesses the mind. To know how to impress the imagination of crowds is to know how to govern them.”
This is both the tactic and working method of media lynching.
On a personal level, media lynching, as a violent form of public communication and manipulation, is generated by what we could call “the Dark Force of the Fourth Estate” in a democratic state. The ritual of media lynching involves the public execution of an enemy figure, who has first been declared persona non grata and “convicted” by public sentiment, sentiment often artificially created and manipulated in the laboratories of media institutions turned public prosecutors, or naturally erupting from public conscience outraged by a condemnable act.
In other words, media lynching is the extreme manifestation of the media’s arbitrariness and lack of scruples. Through its non-journalistic rationale and methods, media lynching has nothing to do with the principles of public interest or with the ethical standards that govern journalistic work. It is simply a process through which, typically in the name of freedom of expression and opinion and usually in service of a hidden major interest, a public figure is discredited in the eyes of the public by journalists, presenters, or hosts of one or more media outlets. In a specific setting and based on a pre-designed scenario, these media actors expose (denounce), incriminate, condemn, and symbolically execute that individual, treating them as a public defendant.
Media lynching makes use of certain journalistic genres, especially news reports, investigations, exposés, talk shows, editorials, and particularly opinion pieces, with the crucial difference that their production and dissemination ignore ethical standards and public interest principles.
In reality, media lynching operates on and relies heavily upon one single non-journalistic weapon: personal attack. This method employs public manipulation through distorted presentation of facts and is characterized by insults, slander, and defamatory labeling, attached to the public image of the target.
The outcome of a media lynching campaign is dominated by content fabricated in the “truth laboratories,” by subjectivity, and especially by opinion pieces. The “procedure” of media lynching allows only the loud and aggressive voices of the so-called media justiciars to be heard in the “court of public opinion.”
Media lynching is an orchestrated act, carried out by a small group of journalists who often embrace and even enjoy the role and status of media executioners. These public figures, often experienced journalists, quickly shift into this role and act in high-audience time slots and spaces, devoid of moral scruples or ethical constraints, all in the service of hidden private interests, and sometimes their own.
It’s worth mentioning that the duration and intensity of a media lynching depend on several factors: the reach and public influence of the media outlet assuming the role of justiciar; the personal resilience of the targeted individual; the political, corporate, or media support they have during the attack; and, not least, how the situation evolves, including shifts in public sentiment.
On a broader scale, a cursory review of media lynching cases both locally and worldwide reveals that they are overwhelmingly triggered by economic or political interests.
There is no doubt that Kim Soo Hyun is the victim of a media lynching.
What remains to be asked is: is this a commissioned lynching, or an accidental one, meant to divert attention from other realities?