Sunny Day

Even if the request for a jury trial is not rejected, the case on the merits will ultimately still be decided by judges. The evidence is so clear that I view this request as nothing more than a brazen attempt to manipulate public opinion. It is evident that he is trying to delay the trial so that he can be released. If my calculations are correct, his detention can only be extended until December. He hopes that, once free, he can stir up a commotion again and pressure the judges by manipulating public opinion and discrediting the court panel.

Girls, I can tell you’re having a great time!

I agree. It will be very interesting to see the reaction of the others involved. Garo0 invented political oppression. What arguments will they put forward?

MIDO case is the first real victory. Although MIDO argued that they could no longer use the actor's image due to the situation arising from the public accusations, the judge was not swayed by such claims. In fact, we know that the companies continued to use the actor's image abroad and that the alleged harm did not exist. The judge made a brilliant point: compensation cannot be sought from victims, who are innocent individuals.
The court rejected MIDO's claim for return of 570 million won in contract deposits, ruling that no grounds for contract termination existed and that controversies stemming from fabricated false allegations by third parties did not constitute valid contractual grounds for holding Kim Soo Hyun or his agency liable.
Park Sung-hoon, attorney at LKB Pisan representing Kim Soo Hyun, stated: "We welcome the court's commonsense judgment," and further noted, "Some advertisers have essentially adopted Kim Se-ui's arguments in their lawsuits, which itself causes significant pain to the victim. We hope that, through this ruling, those truly responsible will be held accountable."
In conclusion, the court held that compensation cannot be demanded from an innocent person, thereby establishing a clear precedent regarding damages claims. Although other proceedings involving additional companies have not yet been adjudicated, it is difficult to conceive that, under the present circumstances, any judge would find merit in companies’ claims for compensation based on publicly false accusations.

I have seen a lot of articles about Kim Se ui and his request for a jury trial, likely based on his influence over public opinion. However, it must be noted that a jury cannot deliver a final verdict, as the jury's decision must be accepted or rejected by the judges. Thus, Garo0 is merely positioning himself as a "victim," hoping for a jury verdict that differs from the court's ruling.
In this way, he will persist with the narrative of victimization and political pressure, attempting to divert attention from the concrete evidence showing that he committed the offense intentionally.
The case was transferred from a single-judge panel to a three-judge panel, a move I consider appropriate, given the gravity of the offense.
I wrote some time ago that this crime was committed through the formation of a criminal group; a group I considered at the time to be composed of the deceased's family, the fake aunt, the family lawyer, and Kim Se-ui.
But, the indictment records that evidence was falsified by two additional persons at Kim Se Ui's request, with the direct participation of the family, who surrendered the deceased's devices for this purpose. This coordination among multiple persons points toward the constitution of a criminal group acting in concert to obtain financial gain through reputational damage. Reflecting the aggravated nature of the offense, the case has been transferred to a three-judge collegiate panel, a procedural step typically reserved for serious offenses involving organized criminal conduct.

I believe that transferring Garo0's case to the three-judge panel indicates that the investigations are nearing completion regarding the other participants in the commission of the offense as well. Even though the cases of the others were severed from Kim Se-ui's, the offense is ultimately the same, and I believe the case will proceed based on the concept of criminal complicity.

No matter how simply I tried to explain it, it seems you didn’t understand. My example of a driver in a foreign country is correct; your reply reads like an AI response that argues without properly interpreting the legal context corresponding to the procedural stage of the case, let alone the jurisdiction for acts committed online.
As I already told you, the civil process is divided into two completely distinct phases, which must not be confused: the adjudicative (contentious) phase and the enforcement phase. The adjudicative phase will take place in the victim’s country; the enforcement phase will take place in the perpetrator’s country. There are legal provisions under which a court judgment from one country is recognized in the country where the person subject to enforcement is located, and at that enforcement stage, the U.S. First Amendment is irrelevant. Yes, the court will review the foreign judgment, but it will not reject it unless it fails to meet the legal requirements for recognition.
It is obvious that no lawyer, after the identities of those who engaged in online harassment are revealed, will ask a Korean court for something that cannot be recognized in the perpetrators’ home countries, and these perpetrators are not only from the United States. So, even if the procedure is slow, online identities can be uncovered and the people who launch such harassment or false accusations can be punished. Some will be luckier and may escape punishment; others will not. Everyone chooses whether to take the risk. The tragedy is that many of them are teenagers, manipulated by the idea of being “cool” on the internet.
Although you strongly defended U.S. protections, I would recommend reading the most recent ruling, from August 26, involving Elon Musk:
https://www.reuters.com/world/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-by-elon-musks-x-challenging-new-york-hate-speech-law-2026-08-26/
Things are not as you present them, and the legal procedure is not inefficient. I have set out a legally correct opinion in order not to encourage online conduct that can be punished. By contrast, your position effectively encourages reprehensible behavior that will, in the future, severely harm those “edgy” teenagers who see themselves as bad heroes in this supposedly anonymous environment, where insult becomes “humor,” cruelty becomes “courage,” humiliation becomes “entertainment,” lies become “opinion,” and mob attacks become “justice.” And believe me, these acts will not go unpunished; you will see that in the not too distant future. I repeat: it is everyone's right to choose whether or not to take the risk.

After a period during which false accusations circulated online through the dissemination of fabricated information by Garo0, matters have begun to return to normal. From a legal standpoint, it is well established that the remedy for such defamation is not immediate; it requires the administration and examination of evidence before any conclusion can be drawn or a verdict rendered. As was to be expected, Kim Soo Hyun’s fans, who placed their trust in him and observed the inconsistencies in the statements and evidence presented by Garosero and the family, expressed profound dissatisfaction with the sluggish pace of the investigation. At the same time, however, hasty analysis and judicial accusation of individuals in the absence of evidence, or solely on the basis of presumptions, must be avoided. Accordingly, these recent days stand in stark contrast to those of last year: Kim Soo Hyun has resumed his professional activities, while those who defamed him through false information now await the criminal trial that will determine the final verdict. This restoration of procedural normality is significant, and his case may constitute an important precedent, as it underscores the necessity of eliminating online harassment, criminal conduct on digital platforms, and defamation through the dissemination of false information for financial gain.
Although reputational and commercial consequences do not dissipate instantaneously, the situation is evolving. Kim Soo Hyun is the first individual who has not succumbed to the pressures of “cancel culture” and has not issued an apology for conduct he did not commit. This recalls, in certain respects, the case of Lee Sung Kyun, couldn’t await the official rebuttal concerning allegations of prohibited substance use.
Kim Soo Hyun’s stance has, however, provoked hostility, hostility stirred by the trolls associated with Kim Se Ui and the family, as well as by media manipulations likely directed by actors of greater influence than Garosero. Nevertheless, the actor’s position is both correct and appropriate if the objective is to eradicate media pressure and the influence of social networks or platforms that sometimes compel artists to make unjustified compromises.
The first favorable judicial determination occurred in May, when the police announced that the evidence presented by the deceased’s family, the fake aunt, and Kim Se Ui was false. Moreover, it was established that such evidence had been intentionally fabricated. This initial finding was corroborated by the court’s decision to maintain Kim Se Ui in pretrial detention. The matter has progressed further: although Kim Se Ui requested a jury trial, the case has thus far been transferred to a three-judge panel. In my view, this procedural development signals the likely legal trajectory—namely, the classification of the offense in its aggravated form through the constitution of a criminal group. This inference arises from the indictment, in which the prosecutor records that the evidence was falsified by two additional persons at Kim Se Ui’s request, with the direct participation of the family, who surrendered the deceased’s devices for this purpose. Thus, we observe the determination of the deceased’s family and the false aunt to obtain a sum of money. This is further evidenced by the legal assistance contract concluded with attorney Boo Ji-seok, whose fee consisted of 30% of any amount recovered. The criminal nature of this conduct is indisputable: the attorney filed no complaint and undertook no judicial proceedings against Kim Soo Hyun, sought no damages through the courts, but instead accompanied the accusers to the Garosero Research Institute and, together with Kim Se Ui, devised a strategy of false accusations intended to pressure the actor into capitulation and, presumably, into providing monetary compensation. For Kim Se Ui, the strategy aimed at generating viewership and obtaining financial gain, alongside the political implications at the time and the urgent need to divert attention from the former president, who is now detained. In sum, the facts indicate the constitution of a criminal group and the participation of multiple persons in the commission of the offense, a case that, under normal circumstances, falls within the jurisdiction of a three-judge panel.
The next favorable judicial outcome was recorded last week, when the claim filed by MIDO Company was dismissed. The court held that compensation cannot be demanded from an innocent person, thereby establishing a clear precedent regarding damages claims. Although other proceedings involving additional companies have not yet been adjudicated, it is difficult to conceive that, under the present circumstances, any judge would find merit in companies’ claims for compensation based on publicly false accusations.
Accordingly, the actor’s professional activity is gradually returning to normal. The international success of the program in which he recently appeared further demonstrates that his popularity has not diminished. Thus, Kim Soo Hyun’s presence at TMA is strategic, and the program is poised to achieve international success by attracting viewers from abroad.
Support and reactions from audiences outside Korea have had the potential to counterbalance a narrative that had become exceedingly powerful within the Korean online space. Once again, this development contributes to the actor’s rehabilitation, including within Korea itself.
There is, moreover, a structural reason for this. An actor such as Kim Soo Hyun is not merely a South Korean public figure; he is part of an industry that, through K-drama and K-pop, has become global. Although Korean society may regard such situations differently, the voices of the actor’s supporters within South Korea have grown stronger. The imbalance created by a destructive culture is now being corrected through the emergence of numerous articles presenting the true circumstances, and efforts are underway to restore the actor’s image by precisely those entities that previously disseminated defamatory information without due caution. This raises a critical question: if artists are expected to apologize for any matter, even for offensive conduct of which they are not guilty, should not media outlets also apologize for the harm inflicted upon the actor through the dissemination of false and defamatory accusations? Should not the companies that sued him and those that terminated their contracts with Kim Soo Hyun likewise apologize and pay compensation? A double standard in society is harmful and breeds injustice. I firmly believe that Kim Soo Hyun’s case will tilt the balance in the correct direction for South Korean artists and that, in the future, companies will no longer react in the same manner to public accusations absent an official complaint filed with the authorities.

A state’s constitution produces direct legal effects only within that state’s territory. Acts committed online fall within the jurisdiction of the country where the victim resides, as the harmful effects of the offense are realized on that state's territory. I will not reiterate what has already been established.
Accordingly, the United States Constitution and the First Amendment do not apply extraterritorially and cannot displace the application of foreign law. They guarantee constitutional protections within the U.S. legal order, but do not prevent other states from applying their own laws to conduct falling within their jurisdiction. Consequently, even in the case of a U.S. citizen, since the relevant conduct falls within the jurisdiction of South Korea, South Korean law applies.
By way of illustration, an American citizen driving on a highway in Japan at 130 km/h (a speed that is lawful in his home country) will be sanctioned by Japanese authorities, because Japan’s legal speed limit is 100–110 km/h. He cannot rely on his domestic law and remains subject to Japanese law. Just as physical presence binds a driver to local traffic laws, the generation of severe financial and psychological harm within a territory establishes absolute jurisdiction over the offense, as a crime is legally committed where its destructive effects are realized.
You are conflating two distinct matters: on the one hand, the adjudication and sanctioning of the underlying act, which form part of the process of obtaining a judgment; on the other hand, the enforcement of that judgment, which constitutes a separate phase governed by the rules of compulsory execution.
Furthermore, to the extent that the acts may be classified in both legal systems as criminal offenses, specifically under cyberstalking provisions where the ongoing psychological danger to the victim could expedite emergency disclosure and enforcement procedures, the requirement of dual criminality may be satisfied, potentially facilitating international criminal cooperation at the enforcement stage.
Moreover, not every user who posts such messages is from the United States, which is precisely why I previously referred to the applicable international conventions.
In essence, information regarding individuals who publish online content that amounts to defamation, dissemination of false information, or harassment is obtained across jurisdictions, including from the United States, where most major platforms are headquartered. The responsible individual will therefore be held liable, regardless of their American citizenship.
Such cases will arise in the near future and will prove instructive; we await, for example, the outcome of the proceedings involving Choi Siwon and IU.

Excellent, keep it up.

More and more celebrities are taking legal action against online defamation and harassment. Following Choi Siwon's footsteps, IU has filed a request in the United States to uncover the identities of her online attackers, while fans of Kim Soo-hyun have also initiated an early-stage action against malicious comments.
Slowly, slowly we will have case law regarding such cases.
http://www.the-biz.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=724631

Under international treaties and conventions, criminal or civil liability for acts committed online is generally governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the harm occurs, in this case, South Korea, where the alleged defamation or injury to reputation would be actionable. This principle applies regardless of the perpetrator's country of residence or the applicable legislation there.
When identifying anonymous users who post on digital platforms, the standard legal mechanism involves filing a lawsuit against the platform itself to compel disclosure of user data. This procedure has been successfully employed in South Korea by public figures such as Choi Siwon and now IU.
The relevant international frameworks facilitating cross-border cooperation in such matters include the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and various mutual legal assistance treaties, such as Hanoi Convention, or Rome Convention.
Even where a state is not a party to such conventions, foreign litigants may still obtain evidence, for example, U.S.-based platforms through 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes U.S. federal courts to order companies within their jurisdiction (such as Meta, Google, or X) to produce evidence for use in foreign proceedings.
In practice, such disputes frequently result in civil remedies, including compensatory damages, which serve both as redress and as a deterrent against future misconduct.
Therefore, the commission of acts in the online environment that may constitute defamation, harassment, or threats can be sanctioned without the user being able to hide.

Actually, you didn't answer my questions. I'll repeat them, in the hope of receiving an intelligible response this time. I will add some more, since you made several affirmations in your message addressed to me.
How do you know whether @Kaelith's affirmation that Kim Soo Hyun is innocent is correct or incorrect? On what factual basis can you make that determination?
Please explain precisely:
- What does "the absence of a criminal case or conviction" mean in this specific context?
- What exactly do you claim "objectively happened"?
- On what basis is that assertion made?
Please define:
- What do you mean by "legal status"?
- What do you mean by "factual conclusions"?
- Under what circumstances do they interfere, and under what circumstances do they not?
When you say you were "pointing out the legal distinction being overlooked," which legal distinction, exactly, are you referring to? Invoking a "legal distinction" without defining it creates the impression of authority without substance.
Finally, can we legitimately claim that someone's affirmation is wrong if we ourselves do not know what actually happened? If yes, on what logical basis?
Please don't make another theory, just anser to my questions.

Prevention is preferable. I don't think such messages bother anyone, and if they are ignored, why should we comment?

When you tell someone they're wrong, you also tell them why.
Can you clarify what you mean when you state that “the absence of a criminal case or conviction does not, in itself, establish what objectively happened”? What exactly do you claim “objectively happened,” and on what basis is that assertion made?
Also, what distinction do you make between legal status and factual conclusions, and what would be your conclusion after making this distinction? Maybe that's how someone understands this mix of ideas, concepts and opinions.

How do you know if her/his statement about somebody's innocence is incorrect or not? I'm really curious!

The current situation is clear enough, the youtuber was arrested for defamation by spreading false information. In such cases, the investigation consists precisely in establishing whether or not the statement made by the youtuber is true. Analyzing what the youtuber stated and what the court's decision is now regarding his preventive arrest motivated by the safety of society, you can draw your own conclusion.

This is a correct information. Because the targeted cyberbullies utilized major U.S. based social media networks their actual identities were shielded by American privacy policies, leaving South Korean investigators unable to identify them to serve the lawsuit. To bypass this hurdle, the legal team filed an ex parte application in the United States using Section 1782.
The California federal court approved the order, forcing X Corp and Google to yield identifying data for the 10 account operators, including legal names, physical addresses and associated email addresses and contact numbers.
With personal data now exposed to the legal team, the South Korean civil lawsuit will set an important precedent for such cases.

Although legislation differs from one country to another, there are international and regional treaties that regulate cybercrime. The most recent global treaty is the Hanoi Convention – the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime.
These treaties and conventions establish legal provisions not only regarding cyber offenses themselves, but also concerning jurisdiction and the procedures applicable to offenses involving cross-border elements.

It's an excellent investigative program, a must-watch!