A new post from Kim Soo Hyun's attorney that includes some questions that need to be answered. [2025/10/11] Final Official Statement from Actor Kim Soo-hyun’s Legal Representative The bereaved family and GaSeYeon (Gaseyeon) have fabricated claims portraying actor Kim Soo-hyun as a middle school child sexual abuser and grooming criminal. Who was the man in 2016 who demanded sexual relations from the deceased when they were still a child, and knowing this, why did they commit such acts? We must ask, and we must obtain their answers. If they refuse to answer, we must compel them to do so. This is the reason the state exists. 1. Where exactly are the thousands of photos? 2. Knowing who the man was in 2016 who demanded sexual relations from the deceased child, why on earth did they commit such acts? The real issue is how to investigate and punish the crimes of those who, through evidence manipulation and public incitement, attempted to brand actor Kim Soo-hyun as a "middle school child sexual abuser." This has been the journey our legal team began with painstaking effort, aiming to explain this to the media, the public, and investigative authorities. The perpetrators portrayed actor Kim Soo-hyun as a middle school child sexual abuser and grooming criminal. However, Kim Soo-hyun did not have any sexual relationship with the deceased while they were a minor, not even a single day, before becoming an adult college student. We have explained and provided proof beyond what was necessary. An ordinary person would not have had to provide such explanations, let alone disclose private records. Now, the focus must return to the essence of the matter. • Who exactly did the deceased exchange KakaoTalk messages with on June 25–26, 2016? The bereaved family and GaSeYeon’s Kim Se-ui should answer. Even though they knew it was not actor Kim Soo-hyun, why did they falsify the KakaoTalk messages—including the profile photo and name—to make it appear as if they were his, and label him as a mobile sexual abuser? We must ask and obtain their answers. If they refuse to answer, we must compel them to do so. This is the reason the state exists. 1. Where exactly are the thousands of photos? 2. Knowing who the man was in 2016 who demanded sexual relations from the deceased child, why on earth did they commit such acts? My position on this matter is clear. The story about the thousands of photos and videos that Gaseyeon claimed they would release did not come out of nowhere. Among the materials they reviewed overnight last March, these thousands of photos were probably included. And in their group chat, while conspiring to ruin someone, there was likely mention of thousands of photos. However, not a single photo of actor Kim Soo-hyun existed, which is why they have not released them. The bereaved family and Gaseyon surely know who the actual sender of the falsified 2016 KakaoTalk messages was, despite making it appear as if Kim Soo-hyun sent them. We must continue to ask. If, in a matter with not even 1% of truth, we fail to hold them accountable, it will be recorded as a disgrace in the history of South Korea’s judiciary. In a world where rapidly advancing AI technology makes anyone a potential cybercrime victim at any time, leaving this unchecked would mean the state has effectively allowed it to happen. Anyone could become a victim. It is time to step forward and raise your voices. Legal Representative of the Actor Attorney Ko Sang-rok
A parting note for @hazeline, since blocking me was apparently her final argument: You started by whining that I was too slow to respond, then immediately switched to complaining that I wrote too much. To your disappointment, I will be following Kim Soo-hyun’s case closely and posting relevant aspects of the case, along with adjacent cases, on the page. You claim legal expertise, yet the moment your statements are challenged, you hide behind “it’s just my opinion,” without the faintest clue where opinion ends and defamation begins. You keep parading imaginary qualifications while displaying the exact opposite. If you actually had the background you claim, I wouldn’t have to watch you trip over basic legal concepts while trying to sound authoritative. I don’t need to advertise my credentials, you’ve already done all the work of showing the difference between someone who understands the law and someone who just name-drops amendments to feel important. What a person knows is visible in how they argue, and you’ve proven your level with every message. Anyway, since you’re counting minutes instead of making points, I’ll leave you to the only metric you seem comfortable with.
Oh, nobody knew that you were responsible for the investigation and sending the evidence. What a huge error by…
Hey champ, of course everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but an opinion stops being an opinion the moment it crosses into defamation. Let me make it simple with a practical example: Anyone has the right to build a house. Correct. Anyone who has the right to build a house can go ahead and build one. Also correct. But can someone with the right to build a house put it on their neighbor’s land? Still correct? Wrong. Try running that little algorithm through your “critical thinking,” dear niece.
Your post repeats a string of factual assertions about Kim Soo Hyun that are unproven and presented as fact. That…
Apologies if my 48-hour delay upset you; some of us have actual responsibilities and aren’t on call for online debates. Weekend luck, I suppose. Since you insist on announcing your law degree, it’s curious that you don’t grasp the difference between constitutional law, international law, and how they interact. Let’s also note that the basics of jurisdiction in online disputes seem to have escaped you, along with the principle that evidence from an ongoing investigation is not something you can simply demand be made public. So, when you say you “passed the bar,” I can’t help wondering if you meant the exam or your local… bar. Since you invoked the U.S. Constitution: a citizen’s national rights don’t override the rights of citizens of other states, much less international human rights norms. When domestic constitutional law clashes with international law or requires extraterritorial application, international treaties step in, and guess what? They take precedence. One more tip: in online defamation, jurisdiction belongs to the country of the defamed party, provided the platform is accessible there. So yes, it’s better to go live your own life rather than try to create the impression of being someone you’re not. But perhaps avoid misleading other users with misplaced confidence and sweeping statements far beyond your depth. Friendly suggestion: spend some of that legal brilliance at a library, even a digital one. It might help your next argument land closer to the law than the lounge.
????? 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.
6 
11 
[2025/10/11] Final Official Statement from Actor Kim Soo-hyun’s Legal Representative
The bereaved family and GaSeYeon (Gaseyeon) have fabricated claims portraying actor Kim Soo-hyun as a middle school child sexual abuser and grooming criminal.
Who was the man in 2016 who demanded sexual relations from the deceased when they were still a child, and knowing this, why did they commit such acts?
We must ask, and we must obtain their answers.
If they refuse to answer, we must compel them to do so.
This is the reason the state exists.
1. Where exactly are the thousands of photos?
2. Knowing who the man was in 2016 who demanded sexual relations from the deceased child, why on earth did they commit such acts?
The real issue is how to investigate and punish the crimes of those who, through evidence manipulation and public incitement, attempted to brand actor Kim Soo-hyun as a "middle school child sexual abuser."
This has been the journey our legal team began with painstaking effort, aiming to explain this to the media, the public, and investigative authorities.
The perpetrators portrayed actor Kim Soo-hyun as a middle school child sexual abuser and grooming criminal.
However, Kim Soo-hyun did not have any sexual relationship with the deceased while they were a minor, not even a single day, before becoming an adult college student.
We have explained and provided proof beyond what was necessary. An ordinary person would not have had to provide such explanations, let alone disclose private records.
Now, the focus must return to the essence of the matter.
• Who exactly did the deceased exchange KakaoTalk messages with on June 25–26, 2016?
The bereaved family and GaSeYeon’s Kim Se-ui should answer.
Even though they knew it was not actor Kim Soo-hyun, why did they falsify the KakaoTalk messages—including the profile photo and name—to make it appear as if they were his, and label him as a mobile sexual abuser?
We must ask and obtain their answers.
If they refuse to answer, we must compel them to do so.
This is the reason the state exists.
1. Where exactly are the thousands of photos?
2. Knowing who the man was in 2016 who demanded sexual relations from the deceased child, why on earth did they commit such acts?
My position on this matter is clear.
The story about the thousands of photos and videos that Gaseyeon claimed they would release did not come out of nowhere.
Among the materials they reviewed overnight last March, these thousands of photos were probably included.
And in their group chat, while conspiring to ruin someone, there was likely mention of thousands of photos.
However, not a single photo of actor Kim Soo-hyun existed, which is why they have not released them.
The bereaved family and Gaseyon surely know who the actual sender of the falsified 2016 KakaoTalk messages was, despite making it appear as if Kim Soo-hyun sent them.
We must continue to ask.
If, in a matter with not even 1% of truth, we fail to hold them accountable, it will be recorded as a disgrace in the history of South Korea’s judiciary.
In a world where rapidly advancing AI technology makes anyone a potential cybercrime victim at any time, leaving this unchecked would mean the state has effectively allowed it to happen.
Anyone could become a victim.
It is time to step forward and raise your voices.
Legal Representative of the Actor
Attorney Ko Sang-rok
You started by whining that I was too slow to respond, then immediately switched to complaining that I wrote too much. To your disappointment, I will be following Kim Soo-hyun’s case closely and posting relevant aspects of the case, along with adjacent cases, on the page.
You claim legal expertise, yet the moment your statements are challenged, you hide behind “it’s just my opinion,” without the faintest clue where opinion ends and defamation begins.
You keep parading imaginary qualifications while displaying the exact opposite. If you actually had the background you claim, I wouldn’t have to watch you trip over basic legal concepts while trying to sound authoritative.
I don’t need to advertise my credentials, you’ve already done all the work of showing the difference between someone who understands the law and someone who just name-drops amendments to feel important.
What a person knows is visible in how they argue, and you’ve proven your level with every message. Anyway, since you’re counting minutes instead of making points, I’ll leave you to the only metric you seem comfortable with.
Anyone has the right to build a house. Correct.
Anyone who has the right to build a house can go ahead and build one. Also correct.
But can someone with the right to build a house put it on their neighbor’s land? Still correct? Wrong.
Try running that little algorithm through your “critical thinking,” dear niece.
Since you insist on announcing your law degree, it’s curious that you don’t grasp the difference between constitutional law, international law, and how they interact. Let’s also note that the basics of jurisdiction in online disputes seem to have escaped you, along with the principle that evidence from an ongoing investigation is not something you can simply demand be made public. So, when you say you “passed the bar,” I can’t help wondering if you meant the exam or your local… bar.
Since you invoked the U.S. Constitution: a citizen’s national rights don’t override the rights of citizens of other states, much less international human rights norms. When domestic constitutional law clashes with international law or requires extraterritorial application, international treaties step in, and guess what? They take precedence.
One more tip: in online defamation, jurisdiction belongs to the country of the defamed party, provided the platform is accessible there.
So yes, it’s better to go live your own life rather than try to create the impression of being someone you’re not. But perhaps avoid misleading other users with misplaced confidence and sweeping statements far beyond your depth.
Friendly suggestion: spend some of that legal brilliance at a library, even a digital one. It might help your next argument land closer to the law than the lounge.
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.