????? this isn't evidence to me. 1. no names on the diary entries. the girl he meant in the diary could well be…
Oh, nobody knew that you were responsible for the investigation and sending the evidence. What a huge error by the authorities! 1. No names in the diary? Money Today confirmed through a journalistic investigation that the entries match 2017–2018, consistent with his statements, and it was proven that the messages presented by Gaseyon were fake. 2. Too short? Evidence isn’t judged by word count. Maybe that’s the key difference, and the NFS authenticates it, not your ruler. 3. Why not letters? Because adults don’t need your preferred stationery format to prove a timeline. 4. Mixed-up breaks? Military leave in 2018 ≠ dating Sae-ron in 2019–2020. Basic math. 5. “Deep love” then moving on?” Shocking! Humans recover from breakups. Meanwhile, Kim Soo-hyun’s side filed defamation suits and submitted everything to the NFS, which opened a preservation file. The ones shouting “fake” still haven’t handed in their supposed evidence. You don’t “buy” it? Great news: it’s not on sale, and you’re not the court.
I’d recommend putting your diary aside for a moment and trying that thing called a brain. Because, you know,…
@hazeline You’re mistaken again, my preferences differ, and my hobbies are far beyond your "adolescent" imagination. That said, as a responsible adult, I feel compelled to point out that you’ve clearly made a hobby out of cyberbullying and defamation. It’s always wise to listen to your elders.
I’d recommend putting your diary aside for a moment and trying that thing called a brain. Because, you know,…
@hazeline at the file, because the investigations are ongoing. Money Today did its own journalistic investigation and made the result public, but since Money Today doesn't matter to you, you can make a request to the police station to be informed of the status of the file and the results so far, maybe your desire is above PIPA. Doesn’t matter that some police officers (in another case) were arrested after it was proven that they gave information from the file... you try.
Your post repeats a string of factual assertions about Kim Soo Hyun that are unproven and presented as fact. That…
My dear “niece,” currently navigating the turbulent stage of digital puberty (as reflected in your Among Us–style rhetoric), allow me, out of concern for your future legal safety and minimal intellectual hygiene,to clarify a few foundational notions: 1. Listing the same act twice does not miraculously generate two separate facts. Repetition is not multiplication. 2. A country’s constitution applies to its citizens within the bounds of its national legal system. It does not govern private international law, which follows entirely distinct legal instruments and conflict-of-law rules. 3. Those who disseminate defamatory content hold the same legal liability as the original author. In legal terms, that constitutes participation through complicity—an aggravating factor, not a loophole. 4. Freedom of expression is not a sacred force field shielding you from consequences. It is expressly limited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by applicable national provisions. And as for jurisdiction, you might be surprised to learn that competence lies with the courts of the state where the defamed individual works, lives, or holds the center of their professional interest—if the defamatory content is accessible or downloadable there. Attorney Jeong Gyeong-seok—whose authority, I regret to inform you, exceeds that of whatever anonymous forum moderator you quote as gospel—explained it best after successfully identifying anonymous accounts abroad through the discovery process: “Ultimately, freedom of expression and responsibility must be balanced. Anonymity may be a public good worthy of protection, but when it infringes upon the rights of others, it must be judged legally.” (https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/015/0005186379) Now, regarding your rather unfortunate declaration that you “have no reason” to take into account statements made by Kim Soo Hyun’s legal representatives: You have just admitted awareness of the official position while continuing to spread defamatory materials. That is not only reckless—it is self-incriminating. As for the evidence you demand, as though you had somehow been seconded to the investigative team: it will be revealed after the investigation is concluded, not at your personal request. For your peace of mind, since restful sleep appears scarce, all evidence submitted by Kim Soo Hyun has already been and continues to be examined by the National Forensic Service. A formal request was filed, and a separate evidentiary preservation file was opened. The delay you find so suspicious arises not from concealment but from the refusal of Gaseyon and the deceased’s family to present the supposedly “obvious” evidence they keep gesturing toward in the media. I know this may sound shocking to those whose legal education comes from Twitter threads and meme pages. So, do not fret. It is healthy to listen when an adult points out the legal cliffs toward which you are sprinting. This resistance to correction is typical of adolescence, but the law is firm. Stop confusing the X platform with the University, and do not let excitable teenagers lure you into conduct that may affect your adult life.
The intention here isn’t to discuss concrete facts, but to take part in defamation by any means possible. Some…
Yes. This constant spread of unfounded claims and twisted narratives has already created too many victims. It’s called cyberbullying and defamation, and it’s exactly the kind of “mud” that responsible people are trying to stop
I keep seeing people claim things like “he lied twice,” “he dated her as a minor,” and “she visited…
The intention here isn’t to discuss concrete facts, but to take part in defamation by any means possible. Some do it deliberately, others out of hatred, not hatred toward the actor, since they don’t actually know him, but a deeper resentment born from their own personal frustration and dissatisfaction.
I had to chime in. Let's focus on the facts.Facts1. KSH denied dating KSR. Said there was no romantic relationship.2.…
First of all, I want you to correct the statement about “for 5 years”. If you are referring to the relationship that the deceased had with Kim Soo hun, this was not a 5-year relationship. If you are referring to the time when she did not admit that she had a relationship, that time was in 2024, so 5 years have not passed. And when some of us are against false accusations online, we do it to stop this "mud" that has created so many victims and which is called cyberbullying and defamation.
1. he said he didn't date saeron, never dated saeron. lied twice.2. he said he dated saeron only after she became…
Your post repeats a string of factual assertions about Kim Soo Hyun that are unproven and presented as fact. That matters. 1. You claim he “lied twice.” Cite the second instance. Absent evidence, that is an unsubstantiated accusation. Kim Soo Hyun already explained why, in 2024, when Queen of Tears was released, he did not admit to having a past relationship with the deceased. Given the controversy surrounding the DUI case at that time and the potential harm it could have caused to the production team, his decision was a matter of professional responsibility. 2. He was accused of having a relationship with her when she was still a minor, which was false. It’s genuinely disturbing how some people use lies not to protect themselves but to deliberately accuse others of crimes they didn’t commit. Accusing anyone of a relationship while they were a minor is an extremely serious charge. Repeating it without proof is reckless. 3. What exactly is so strange here? Do you know the details of his previous relationship, or why it ended? Why would it be impossible for him to have started a new one afterward? Are you perhaps living in a drama where people must wait for your approval before moving on? The deceased herself had multiple relationships that ended, hould we judge her for that too? 4. Please read the full statement from the actor’s representative, including the mention of a family member who supports both of them in their artistic careers. That might clarify what you clearly missed. Unless, of course, you prefer to stay hopelessly misinformed. 5. Your fifth point meets every legal criterion for defamation. You’re not merely expressing an opinion. You’re asserting damaging facts without evidence. That’s not freedom of speech; that’s malicious insinuation. 6. – 7. He never said his parents were present, it was just a reference to family in general, at that time, and now his lawyer has detailed which family members he was referring to. And the cooking video and the visit during his military leave are two separate events, not one and the same. That means your statements don’t just distort facts; they actively spread disinformation. Why rush to publish in six minutes what a thirty-second thinking and fact-checking would have been enough?
I’d recommend putting your diary aside for a moment and trying that thing called a brain. Because, you know,…
And she already told you that the official records were checked, and even more so, at that time the use of phones in the military unit was prohibited. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!
I’d recommend putting your diary aside for a moment and trying that thing called a brain. Because, you know,…
The diary maybe couldn’t be considered a proof of external facts, depends of the situation, but it is corroborated with other evidence. But your message isn’t just about facts; it’s wrapped in condescension and that shrug ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, as if attitude replaces evidence. If you want to contribute meaningfully, verified records and credible sources matter far more than tone or clever little gestures. Mocking others doesn’t make your point stronger, it only highlights that your argument relies on style, not substance. Try not to show your emotions so obvious already.
"kakaotalk messages proven fake" -- PFFFFTwho proved it? the NFS? they're using his personal diary to…
I’d recommend putting your diary aside for a moment and trying that thing called a brain. Because, you know, there are actual press reports from that time, consistently stating that after basic training, Kim Soo-hyun was assigned to the First Reconnaissance Battalion, which is a front-line or near-front-line posting (DMZ) with stricter military conditions, where phone access was tightly restricted, and confirming he was on base, not on leave. Money Today has already fact-checked media reports from that period, which line up perfectly with his diary entries, and the official investigation file includes queries to the military division to confirm that he was not on leave But hey, by all means, keep your journal close, after all, we all make do with whatever tools we’ve got, don’t we?
As Babyface419 wrote, Kakao Talk messages are fake. According to an investigation by Money Today on the 5th, the grieving family revealed in March, through the Garo Sero Research Institute, text messages that Kim Soo-hyun allegedly sent to the deceased, but the messages turned out to be fake. There are signs that part of the text messages between actor Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron, released by the YouTube channel Garo Sero Research Institute, were fabricated. It has been confirmed that on the day Kim Soo-hyun was reportedly on leave from the military and contacted the deceased, he was actually on base. A report published by Money Today, a South Korean media and economic newspaper, reveals that Kim Soo Hyun could not have sent those messages as he was serving in the military at that time. According to a personal diary of the actor obtained by the outlet, he recorded completing operations and standing guard from April 2 to 5, 2018. It was also confirmed in media reports that Kim Soo-hyun participated in training conducted in the operation area on April 4th. This evidence contradicts claims of the actor being on leave, as alleged in the 2018 text messages sent to deceased. A simple check of his military leave records disproves the claims. https://www.mt.co.kr/society/2025/10/05/2025100517363790637
According to an investigation by Money Today on the 5th, the grieving family revealed in March, through the Garo Sero Research Institute, text messages that Kim Soo-hyun allegedly sent to the deceased, but the messages turned out to be fake. There are signs that part of the text messages between actor Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron, released by the YouTube channel Garo Sero Research Institute, were fabricated. It has been confirmed that on the day Kim Soo-hyun was reportedly on leave from the military and contacted the deceased, he was actually on base. A report published by Money Today, a South Korean media and economic newspaper, reveals that Kim Soo Hyun could not have sent those messages as he was serving in the military at that time. According to a personal diary of the actor obtained by the outlet, he recorded completing operations and standing guard from April 2 to 5, 2018. It was also confirmed in media reports that Kim Soo-hyun participated in training conducted in the operation area on April 4th. This evidence contradicts claims of the actor being on leave, as alleged in the 2018 text messages sent to deceased. A simple check of his military leave records disproves the claims. https://www.mt.co.kr/society/2025/10/05/2025100517363790637
6 
11 
https://myadira.com/blogs/puberty/how-puberty-affects-the-mental-health-of-girls#:~:text=The%20first%20indication%20that%20a,can%20help%20ease%20this%20pressure
1. No names in the diary? Money Today confirmed through a journalistic investigation that the entries match 2017–2018, consistent with his statements, and it was proven that the messages presented by Gaseyon were fake.
2. Too short? Evidence isn’t judged by word count. Maybe that’s the key difference, and the NFS authenticates it, not your ruler.
3. Why not letters? Because adults don’t need your preferred stationery format to prove a timeline.
4. Mixed-up breaks? Military leave in 2018 ≠ dating Sae-ron in 2019–2020. Basic math.
5. “Deep love” then moving on?” Shocking! Humans recover from breakups.
Meanwhile, Kim Soo-hyun’s side filed defamation suits and submitted everything to the NFS, which opened a preservation file. The ones shouting “fake” still haven’t handed in their supposed evidence.
You don’t “buy” it? Great news: it’s not on sale, and you’re not the court.
1. Listing the same act twice does not miraculously generate two separate facts. Repetition is not multiplication.
2. A country’s constitution applies to its citizens within the bounds of its national legal system. It does not govern private international law, which follows entirely distinct legal instruments and conflict-of-law rules.
3. Those who disseminate defamatory content hold the same legal liability as the original author. In legal terms, that constitutes participation through complicity—an aggravating factor, not a loophole.
4. Freedom of expression is not a sacred force field shielding you from consequences. It is expressly limited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by applicable national provisions. And as for jurisdiction, you might be surprised to learn that competence lies with the courts of the state where the defamed individual works, lives, or holds the center of their professional interest—if the defamatory content is accessible or downloadable there.
Attorney Jeong Gyeong-seok—whose authority, I regret to inform you, exceeds that of whatever anonymous forum moderator you quote as gospel—explained it best after successfully identifying anonymous accounts abroad through the discovery process:
“Ultimately, freedom of expression and responsibility must be balanced. Anonymity may be a public good worthy of protection, but when it infringes upon the rights of others, it must be judged legally.”
(https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/015/0005186379)
Now, regarding your rather unfortunate declaration that you “have no reason” to take into account statements made by Kim Soo Hyun’s legal representatives:
You have just admitted awareness of the official position while continuing to spread defamatory materials. That is not only reckless—it is self-incriminating.
As for the evidence you demand, as though you had somehow been seconded to the investigative team: it will be revealed after the investigation is concluded, not at your personal request. For your peace of mind, since restful sleep appears scarce, all evidence submitted by Kim Soo Hyun has already been and continues to be examined by the National Forensic Service. A formal request was filed, and a separate evidentiary preservation file was opened. The delay you find so suspicious arises not from concealment but from the refusal of Gaseyon and the deceased’s family to present the supposedly “obvious” evidence they keep gesturing toward in the media.
I know this may sound shocking to those whose legal education comes from Twitter threads and meme pages.
So, do not fret. It is healthy to listen when an adult points out the legal cliffs toward which you are sprinting. This resistance to correction is typical of adolescence, but the law is firm.
Stop confusing the X platform with the University, and do not let excitable teenagers lure you into conduct that may affect your adult life.
1. You claim he “lied twice.” Cite the second instance. Absent evidence, that is an unsubstantiated accusation. Kim Soo Hyun already explained why, in 2024, when Queen of Tears was released, he did not admit to having a past relationship with the deceased. Given the controversy surrounding the DUI case at that time and the potential harm it could have caused to the production team, his decision was a matter of professional responsibility.
2. He was accused of having a relationship with her when she was still a minor, which was false. It’s genuinely disturbing how some people use lies not to protect themselves but to deliberately accuse others of crimes they didn’t commit. Accusing anyone of a relationship while they were a minor is an extremely serious charge. Repeating it without proof is reckless.
3. What exactly is so strange here? Do you know the details of his previous relationship, or why it ended? Why would it be impossible for him to have started a new one afterward? Are you perhaps living in a drama where people must wait for your approval before moving on? The deceased herself had multiple relationships that ended, hould we judge her for that too?
4. Please read the full statement from the actor’s representative, including the mention of a family member who supports both of them in their artistic careers. That might clarify what you clearly missed. Unless, of course, you prefer to stay hopelessly misinformed.
5. Your fifth point meets every legal criterion for defamation. You’re not merely expressing an opinion. You’re asserting damaging facts without evidence. That’s not freedom of speech; that’s malicious insinuation.
6. – 7. He never said his parents were present, it was just a reference to family in general, at that time, and now his lawyer has detailed which family members he was referring to.
And the cooking video and the visit during his military leave are two separate events, not one and the same. That means your statements don’t just distort facts; they actively spread disinformation.
Why rush to publish in six minutes what a thirty-second thinking and fact-checking would have been enough?
But your message isn’t just about facts; it’s wrapped in condescension and that shrug ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, as if attitude replaces evidence.
If you want to contribute meaningfully, verified records and credible sources matter far more than tone or clever little gestures. Mocking others doesn’t make your point stronger, it only highlights that your argument relies on style, not substance.
Try not to show your emotions so obvious already.
Money Today has already fact-checked media reports from that period, which line up perfectly with his diary entries, and the official investigation file includes queries to the military division to confirm that he was not on leave
But hey, by all means, keep your journal close, after all, we all make do with whatever tools we’ve got, don’t we?
According to an investigation by Money Today on the 5th, the grieving family revealed in March, through the Garo Sero Research Institute, text messages that Kim Soo-hyun allegedly sent to the deceased, but the messages turned out to be fake.
There are signs that part of the text messages between actor Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron, released by the YouTube channel Garo Sero Research Institute, were fabricated. It has been confirmed that on the day Kim Soo-hyun was reportedly on leave from the military and contacted the deceased, he was actually on base.
A report published by Money Today, a South Korean media and economic newspaper, reveals that Kim Soo Hyun could not have sent those messages as he was serving in the military at that time.
According to a personal diary of the actor obtained by the outlet, he recorded completing operations and standing guard from April 2 to 5, 2018.
It was also confirmed in media reports that Kim Soo-hyun participated in training conducted in the operation area on April 4th.
This evidence contradicts claims of the actor being on leave, as alleged in the 2018 text messages sent to deceased.
A simple check of his military leave records disproves the claims.
https://www.mt.co.kr/society/2025/10/05/2025100517363790637
There are signs that part of the text messages between actor Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron, released by the YouTube channel Garo Sero Research Institute, were fabricated. It has been confirmed that on the day Kim Soo-hyun was reportedly on leave from the military and contacted the deceased, he was actually on base.
A report published by Money Today, a South Korean media and economic newspaper, reveals that Kim Soo Hyun could not have sent those messages as he was serving in the military at that time.
According to a personal diary of the actor obtained by the outlet, he recorded completing operations and standing guard from April 2 to 5, 2018.
It was also confirmed in media reports that Kim Soo-hyun participated in training conducted in the operation area on April 4th.
This evidence contradicts claims of the actor being on leave, as alleged in the 2018 text messages sent to deceased.
A simple check of his military leave records disproves the claims.
https://www.mt.co.kr/society/2025/10/05/2025100517363790637