Sunny Day

You might want to reread all your messages on the page and see exactly what you’ve been saying, then take a quick look at Article 307 of the K.C.A. Or shall I provide references to the relevant international treaties too?

I will not repeat what I have already stated, so do not try to give the impression that I failed to respond. And you are right, I may not know your definition of “diffamation,” but I am fully aware of the criminal offense I referred to earlier, where it is established in law, and I am also familiar with the international treaties that allow for the extradition of individuals who commit crimes that interfere with the legislation of other states.
What exactly do you want to discuss? And do not attempt to hide behind the guise of being “frustrated for truth,” because your real intention is already evident. Even if you have slightly changed your tone in your latest message, what you wrote before remains and clearly reveals your intention. In fact, you will always refer to Kim Soo Hyun’s 2024 statement, because that is the only thing you can use against him, nothing more.

From the beginning, I stated that a plan had already been partially prepared before the death of the late actress, suspecting that there was an “arsenal” behind the publication of the photo. Initially, I thought that the deceased’s manager was involved, but after he made public the conversations between himself and the deceased, I understood that this was not the case.
The key point is that what I had already stated has been confirmed: a plan existed since 2024, but for an unknown reason, it was not implemented. Lawyer Sang-rok Ko notes that the deceased had no intention of releasing the false statement publicly:
“It appears that the deceased never intended to release this false statement externally, and it seems likely that someone assisted in preparing it (photo evidence exists).”
The question remains: who is really behind all of this?

The Origin of the Case – The Misconduct of Gaseyeon (Summary)

1. On the actor’s iPad, the disputed photo (showing the deceased and the actor with their faces close together) remained along with adjacent photographs. The series of images confirmed the dates of each photo, showing they were taken only days apart. As a result, the disputed photo was identified as having been taken between February 18 and 23, 2020. The iPad itself was submitted as-is to the investigative authorities, making this fact verifiable.

2. The deceased appears never to have intended to publicly release the draft of the false statement—likely prepared with someone else’s assistance (see photo). Had that false statement been issued at the time, the claim that the photo was from 2016 would have been immediately disproven. Knowing this, there would have been no reason for the deceased to insist on issuing such a false statement. Nevertheless, for some unknown reason, the false statement was prepared despite being unpublishable at the time, and one year later it became the starting point of this incident.

3. For some reason (“A”), this false statement was left behind with the involvement of the deceased, and one year later, for another reason (“B”), it was used by others and by Gaseyeon to commit a serious cybercrime against an innocent actor. The consequences were great and entirely foreseeable. The perpetrators are now predictably claiming they simply “believed the KakaoTalk messages the deceased sent directly.” The previous legal team has already formally requested the police to thoroughly investigate that claim.

4. The false draft statement, created under the deceased’s involvement on March 25, 2024, contains multiple blatant errors. This is the exact point the actor, Kim Soo Hyun, attempted to convey at the March 31 press conference. However, out of respect for the deceased and in consideration of potential harm to fellow entertainers, the actor and his agency chose to briefly state only the essential truth and to quietly prove the facts through his existing legal counsel. This was a sacrifice borne by the victim and that decision deserves respect.

5. One of the clearest inconsistencies is the factual 12-year age difference between the deceased and the actor—an unchangeable fact. Yet, the false draft statement says, “I was 16, and he was 30,” which is inherently contradictory. If the deceased was 16, the actor would have been 28, and if the actor was 30, the deceased would have been 18. Still, the statement went beyond simple falsification by even altering indisputable facts to maximize malicious misrepresentation. It was evidently orchestrated to depict a man in his thirties as psychologically dominating and sexually exploiting a minor (under age 16), who under current law and social norms is deemed incapable of sexual self-determination. This was a premeditated propaganda piece.

6. This scheme began, as previously mentioned, on March 25, 2024, for unknown internal reasons. But at that time, any attempt to implement it would have immediately exposed the lie, making it impossible to execute. However, exactly one year later, after the deceased had passed away, the perpetrators fully “executed” the same malicious framing—portraying “psychological domination and sexual exploitation of a minor”—against the actor.

7. Even though the actor and his agency consistently issued immediate and specific rebuttals, Gaseyeon continued to slander the actor with fabricated evidence and distorted interpretations, driving the victim into a deadly corner. These false claims have continued for seven months and are still being repeated—as recently as Gaseyeon’s live broadcast on September 30, 2025.

8. From the early stages of the incident, the actor endured extreme public criticism from an audience deceived by the false narrative. No matter how clearly the actor and his agency refuted the claims with objective facts, Gaseyeon escalated the fabrications and attacks. At first, they claimed there was “a 6-year relationship starting in the 3rd year of middle school,” and later, “sexual relations in 2nd year of middle school,” continuously amplifying the false narrative to destroy the victim’s character and bury him socially.

9. Yet, for seven months, our society failed to stop it. In truth, even without the diary letter I disclosed a few days ago, it was already obvious that a single letter the actor sent during his military service to the deceased—who was then in her final year of high school—could not serve as evidence of a romantic relationship at that time. On the contrary, that letter clearly disproved the perpetrators’ claims of “years-long psychological domination and sexual exploitation beginning in childhood.” Could someone who allegedly had sexual relations with a 2nd-year middle school child and then psychologically manipulated and exploited her for four years write something resembling an essay about nature, the sky, and a sincere commitment to his military duties? Despite this common sense, the perpetrators’ propaganda paralyzed public reasoning, and the majority of the public either stood by or ignored the secondary harm inflicted on a cybercrime victim.

10. Early in the case, the perpetrators ignored a court’s provisional order to stop stalking behavior carried out through repeated broadcasts—and this unlawful conduct continues even now. Meanwhile, the compulsory investigation requested for rapid evidence preservation was delayed under the pretext of safeguarding the suspect’s defense rights. His bold claim that he would release “thousands of photos after the presidential election” intimidated the media. Yet, even four months after the election date (June 3), not a single photo has been produced, and no one has held them accountable. In the meantime, public and media attention has faded.

11. The victim and his family, who suffered social character assassination based on fabricated claims, continue to worry that disclosing evidence to prove the truth could inadvertently harm other entertainers. The victim has firmly stated that “revealing the truth is essential, but no innocent parties should be harmed,” and, despite the urgent desire to clear his name, has chosen to do so solely through legal investigation. However, this sacrifice was mocked by certain YouTubers who assumed the perpetrator’s claims were true, ridiculed the actor, and chased nothing but views.

12. More than six months passed. Only recently did I join the legal team, review the facts and the timeline, and after thorough deliberation with the existing counsel, we concluded that partial evidence disclosure was unavoidable. I thank the many journalists who understood and reported our intentions accurately, and I am relieved that public opinion is finally returning to a normal state.

13. Nevertheless, some still insist that there is “not enough proof” and continue to support the perpetrators. How far must a victim go to prove something that never happened? I sincerely hope no further disclosure becomes necessary. But if another unavoidable moment comes, we will handle it with maximum caution, consistent with the actor’s and agency’s unchanging stance from the outset, ensuring no innocent parties are harmed.

14. Despite the clear revelation that the actor never dated the deceased during her minor years, malicious comments continue. Now that it is proven there was “not even a single day of dating when she was a minor,” some are shifting to secondary attacks such as, “There is a time and place for explanations; Kim Soo Hyun’s career is already over.”

Is that acceptable? Is this truly what the Republic of Korea stands for?

15. Cybercrime can target anyone. With the development of AI technology, such crimes are becoming more elaborate and widespread, and we are rapidly heading into the worst possible environment. If this is not stopped now, the next victim could be your friend, your family member, or even you. I still remember the sorrow and heaviness caused by the death of actor Lee Sun-kyun. It is time to break this cycle, and I hope this case serves as a turning point.

16. Do not undermine the victim’s efforts to expose the truth. Those who claim they are “too tired to hear any more of the truth” are the very people who create social monsters like Gaseyeon. Do not become their accomplices.

Kim Soo Hyun’s Legal Representative
Attorney Ko Sang-rok, Law Firm Pil
October 4, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/@%EC%A7%84%EA%B2%A9%EC%9D%98%EA%B3%A0%EB%B3%80/posts

To @HIKIKOMORI
You have posted an excessive number of comments that defame the actor and insinuate that his legal team is lying, an accusation which itself constitutes defamation, given the professional status and ethical obligations of licensed attorneys. For that reason, I could not refrain from responding. This message is consolidated here due to its length, rather than replying individually to each of your misleading and malicious remarks.
No matter how determined you are to promote the narrative that Kim Soo Hyun lied from the beginning, especially at the press conference, by referring to facts you clearly do not know or by misquoting statements you have misunderstood or distorted, you cannot overturn the clear evidence supporting the statements of his legal representatives.
You repeatedly use expressions such as "letters" plural, implying that multiple letters were sent to the deceased, or that “he stated his parents were there,” when these claims are false and clearly intended to defame. It has already been established that there was only one such letter, and the reference to family presence did not include both parents. I am genuinely curious whether this is a misunderstanding on your part due to translation issues, or if you are intentionally misrepresenting facts to mislead others and spread false rumors, rumors that meet all legal criteria for defamation.
A single isolated statement made by him in 2024, under circumstances already explained by others here, cannot serve as grounds for any form of conviction, legal or moral.
The evidence released publicly by attorney Sang-rock Kho represents only a portion of what was submitted to the authorities. During an active investigation, evidence cannot be made public except when it was already publicly disclosed beforehand. Since the letter presented by Gaseyon was already in the public domain, and since Kim Soo Hyun had previously explained how his letters to his then-girlfriend differed from that document—partially revealing them at that time—attorney Sang-rock Kho referred only to materials that had already been publicly mentioned.
His official statement was explicit:
“Please understand that disclosure of materials has been limited strictly to the scope necessary to clarify the legal issues at hand, so as not to invite unnecessary speculation or intrusive interest in irrelevant areas. The writings cited today were all submitted to the investigative authorities in their original form, without alteration of a single word.”
He further stated:
“During his later enlistment at an isolated frontline unit, the actor adapted to the pressures of public attention by maintaining connections with fellow entertainers. He found comfort in that sense of kinship and occasionally wrote to acquaintances outside, sharing reflections on military life and affirming his determination to return as an actor. The single disclosed letter to the deceased was one such letter.”
Therefore, it does not follow that he sent no other letters during that time. It simply means that the notes currently in his possession and disclosed publicly are from his personal diary. Once the investigation concludes, all evidence relied upon by the defense could be shown to the public—if he chooses—bearing in mind that such documents may be too personal to disclose, and the individuals involved may not consent to having their names made public. Additionally, investigative authorities and the court decide which evidence is relevant and admissible.
Your claim that he “failed to make other letters public” ignores two basic legal realities:
1. Once letters are sent, they are no longer in his possession, and recipients may not have preserved them.
2. It is prohibited to release evidence publicly during an active investigation.
This does not mean that no other letters exist in the case file, nor does it mean potential recipients will not be questioned. Your conclusion is baseless and malicious. To assert that the lack of public disclosure demonstrates his guilt is absurd. Your persistence on this point raises suspicions that you are intentionally contributing to defamation against both the actor and his legal counsel.
It has also been clarified by his lawyer that his diary included writings addressed to his then-girlfriend, and that they read those entries together when they met. His manager at the time knew about the relationship, and there were other parties aware of the truth. All such aspects will be investigated and evaluated. Documents, photos, videos, audio recordings, and other materials will undergo expert examination to verify authenticity and lack of alteration.
Only after a full investigation can any verdict be reached. However, it appears that some individuals, including yourself, have already rendered judgment based solely on media coverage—coverage which is often incomplete, selectively framed, or presented with interpretative bias to generate attention. And when complaints arise, such outlets typically shield themselves by claiming they merely repeated third-party information or that the public misunderstood.
Your comments follow precisely that pattern of distortion and presumption. This is not “discussion”, it is reckless defamation disguised as opinion.

Wow, impressive! You must’ve had this revelation somewhere between stirring your soup and scrolling through Google. I always thought the law was a normative act with superior legal force, regulating fundamental social relations with a binding, not optional, character.
You probably meant legal principles, not “legal definitions,” but that term must have slipped your search results. Legal principles are indeed the foundation for interpretation, and interpretation must be uniform. When it isn’t, that’s exactly why the Supreme Court exists: to settle divergent practices.
And your gem about “we have trials because judges don’t interpret the law the same way”… that’s xNobel Prize material. Trials exist because people break the law, fight over contracts, inheritances, rights, and obligations. If your theory were true, one could wonder: in the absence of disputes, for whom exactly should judges be interpreting the law differently?
Anyway, enlighten me. I have a rainy weekend, and nothing is more entertaining than coming back here to see what new pearls of wisdom you manage to come up with.

You don’t need a court ruling to think, true, but judging by your message, you might need … something…to think correctly. Ignorance dressed up as confidence is still ignorance.

YouTube channel behind false attacks on Kim Soo-hyun faces possible transformation through shareholder changes
On October 1, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court, Civil Division 68 (Judge Lee Min-ji) ruled in case 2025Gadan48761 that Garosero Research Institute Co., Ltd. must carry out the shareholder name transfer procedure requested by Eun Hyun-jang, also known as the "God of Business."
The dispute arose after Eun purchased a 50% stake (20,000 shares) in Garosero Research Institute from Mr. Shin, who had previously acquired the shares from co-founder and attorney Kang Yong-seok. Despite being notified, the company refused to record Eun as a shareholder, claiming Kang’s transfer was invalid.
The court rejected this defense, confirming that Eun’s acquisition was legally valid and that Garosero Research Institute’s refusal to process the name transfer was unlawful. The ruling compels the company, as an unlisted corporation, to update its shareholder register to reflect Eun’s ownership.
This follows an earlier ruling by the 50th Civil Division granting Eun provisional recognition as a shareholder. With this new judgment, Eun is now formally recognized as a legitimate 50% shareholder.
Eun has already begun exercising shareholder rights. On September 16, 2025, with court approval, he convened an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, where resolutions were passed including reducing the CEO’s monthly salary to zero.
The ruling also casts doubt on the legitimacy of current CEO Kim Se-ui’s position. Kim was appointed CEO on July 13, 2021, with his term expiring on July 12, 2024, under Article 383(2) of the Korean Commercial Act, which limits director terms to three years absent reappointment by shareholder resolution. Since no such general meeting was convened, Kim’s continued service as CEO lacks a valid legal basis.
Finally, the court noted that failure to maintain proper registration may result in judicial dissolution of the corporation if not remedied within statutory deadlines.

We should all applaud her, rare to see such relentless devotion from a fan who checks in daily. She keeps the page alive, even she doesn't know that...

Ah, I see the remix account is live again, same script, minor edits. Truly impressive how creativity thrives when you’re just rewording your own complaints. Keep it up, it’s adorable.

We all "admire" the fearless spotted hyena, but lately it’s taken to ghosting the jungle, howling at empty trees and coordinating with its clone account like some kind of bizarre duet. Truly inspiring dedication… to nothing

Right, because when I think of qualified mental health advice, my first thought is someone confidently misreading legal discussions online. Perfect fit.

If a legal account already feels like a fan letter to you, imagine what an actual court ruling would do, probably knock you out cold. Stick to gossip, it’s lighter reading for you

Update:
On October 1, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court, Civil Division 68 (Judge Lee Min-ji) ruled in case 2025Gadan48761 that Garosero Research Institute Co., Ltd. must carry out the shareholder name transfer procedure requested by Eun Hyun-jang, also known as the "God of Business."
The dispute arose after Eun purchased a 50% stake (20,000 shares) in Garosero Research Institute from Mr. Shin, who had previously acquired the shares from co-founder and attorney Kang Yong-seok. Despite being notified, the company refused to record Eun as a shareholder, claiming Kang’s transfer was invalid.
The court rejected this defense, confirming that Eun’s acquisition was legally valid and that Garosero Research Institute’s refusal to process the name transfer was unlawful. The ruling compels the company, as an unlisted corporation, to update its shareholder register to reflect Eun’s ownership.

He didn't change his team of lawyers, but a new lawyer joined, which is a big difference.

Before rushing to conclusions, you should carefully read what I wrote above. What was presented publicly is not the entire body of evidence. The truth will ultimately be established by the criminal investigation authorities and the court, based on all evidence administered, verified, and cross-checked. Your perspective is built on gossip and speculation, but I will nevertheless explain why your assumptions collapse under scrutiny. In the end, we shall see who truly needs a therapist.
If, as you claim, the letters were addressed to the deceased, why was there only one sent to her, and one that contained nothing indicative of a romantic or intimate relationship? If he had already sent one, there would have been no reason not to send more. The fact remains: only a single letter exists, and its content contradicts the alleged intimacy. Moreover, there are other letters from that same period addressed to colleagues and acquaintances which have not been made public. Your entire reasoning is based on the supposition that “this ‘gf’ could be Saeron,” while the verdict will be based only on verifiable evidence.
And the idea that loving someone “so much” makes it impossible to later separate is simply childish. People do break up, sometimes because the other person chooses to end things or move on. That is real life, not the simplistic fairytale logic you’re applying.
Witnesses will testify under judicial procedure, where false testimony is punished by imprisonment. Their sworn statements will confirm his actual relationship during that period. That is how the truth will emerge, not through your speculative commentary.
This is precisely why courts require minimum objective evidence to sustain even presumptions. And here lies the problem: if the deceased’s family and Garosero truly possessed real evidence, why did they resort to falsifications, why did they misstate the age difference, and why did they alter the alleged timeline of events? Meanwhile, KSH’s position has remained consistent, and the existing expert-verified evidence supports his statement. Unlike rumors, such material cannot be fabricated, which explains why the other side avoids producing it.
So yes, the evidence makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is your attempt to pass idle gossip off as critical thinking. Perhaps next time, before prescribing therapy, you should consider a dose of reality yourself.

The evidence publicly presented by attorney Sang-rock Kho represents only part of what was filed in the official case record. By law, certain materials from an ongoing investigation cannot be disclosed unless they were already in the public domain. Since the letter shown by Gaseyon had already circulated, and since Kim Soo-hyun himself had previously shared that his letters to his girlfriend during that period were written in a different style, the attorney referred only to those already-revealed documents.
As attorney Kho clarified: “Please understand that disclosure of materials has been limited strictly to the scope necessary to clarify the legal issues at hand, so as not to invite unnecessary speculation or intrusive interest in irrelevant areas. The writings cited today were all submitted to the investigative authorities in their original form, without alteration of a single word.”
Therefore, the absence of additional letters in the public space does not mean they were never written; it only means that, for now, only the diary entries were deemed appropriate to disclose.
Attorney Kho also explained: “During his later enlistment at an isolated frontline unit, the actor adapted to the pressures of public attention by maintaining connections with fellow entertainers. He found comfort in that sense of kinship and occasionally wrote to acquaintances outside, sharing reflections on military life and affirming his determination to return as an actor. The single disclosed letter to the deceased was one such letter.”
At the end of the proceedings, all relevant evidence (whether documentary or testimonial) may, if desired, be disclosed to the public, subject of course to the actor’s personal privacy. In court, evidence is verified, authenticity is tested (even through judicial expertise, if needed), witnesses are heard, and only after this full process is a verdict delivered. That verdict can then be appealed by either party.
Even if this particular case is not yet resolved, every one of Kim Soo-hyun’s complaints will eventually receive a legal solution. And let us not forget that the deceased’s family made a single complaint, based on a fabricated recording, and there will be a solution in that case as well. The very attempt to undermine justice only proves that even those who spread hatred online know, deep down, where the truth really lies.
In the end, hatred reveals more about the one who spreads it than about its target. Someone once said: “What is inside people will eventually come out of them.” Looking at these messages, it is hard to disagree.

Quoting fragments out of context to spin a story might work online, but it has nothing to do with reality. Attorney Sang-rock Kho made it clear: only materials already public were disclosed, while the rest remain confidential in the official file. The absence of more letters in the media doesn’t mean they don’t exist, it only means they’re not for public display yet.
The breakup with his girlfriend happened earlier, and there’s no evidence he “left her for KSR.” That’s speculation, not fact. In court, evidence is verified, authenticity is checked, and witnesses can be heard. In the media, however, sensation sells and facts are trimmed to fit a headline.
So between legal evidence filed with investigators and gossip stitched together in comments—only one of them actually counts. Guess which.

You claim “there’s plenty of evidenceagainst Kim Soo-hyun”, but by law, he cannot be criminally liable for the alleged acts. This is completely false information.
First, there is not a single piece of genuine evidence against him. That is why neither the deceased’s family nor Garosero submitted this so-called evidence to the police for forensic verification.
Second, Kim Soo-hyun has used the legal right to file complaints against Garosero and the deceased’s family for defamation, for presenting false evidence. However, if he files such a complaint without proving that their so-called evidence is indeed false, he himself could be legally punished for slanderous denunciation.
Do not let hatred guide your statements. Analyze the facts and conduct proper research before spreading misinformation.

Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 68, on the 1st October (in a few hours), will announce the verdict on the case of Mr. Eun's request for the performance of the name transfer procedure against Garosero Research Institute... 2:00 PM, Room 562, East Building
https://www.pennmike.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=108431
The outcome of this case could significantly impact the future operations and leadership of Garosero Research Institute. Observers are keenly awaiting the court's decision, as it may influence the company's direction and its involvement in ongoing controversies.