Sunny Day

After strutting around like some noble warrior and throwing out baseless accusations about Kim Soo-Hyun, pretending it was all in the name of justice, the YouTube channel has now undergone a full makeover.
The once fire-breathing "Garosero Research Institute (Gaseyeon)" has magically transformed into… a food and shopping channel. Overnight.
According to industry sources on the 19th, Gaseyeon, which until recently branded itself as a hardline right-wing outlet, is now busy promoting tteokgalbi (grilled short ribs) and Hamheung bibim naengmyeon meal kits in its latest uploads. And no, it wasn’t hacked…apparently this was the plan.
https://n.news.naver.com/article/015/0005187530?sid=102

If they believed it necessary to issue an apology letter, I believe that a formal complaint may have been filed and that they were already aware they could face both criminal and civil liability.
It seems some people only realize the law exists after their own mistakes go public, a lesson in accountability that social media rumors rarely teach.

This report is legally nonsensical. A joint action of the type described would require the existence of a common legal relationship among the six companies — specifically, a single contract concluded jointly between those companies and Kim Soo-hyun. In the absence of such a contract, the six companies cannot pursue identical claims in one action, because each has a separate contractual relationship with the actor.
Under Korean procedural law, the principle of res judicata (the finality of judgments) and lis pendens (the bar on duplicative proceedings) prevents a party from being sued twice for the same cause of action. Exceptions exist, for example if the first lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, or if the second lawsuit is based on a different cause of action or legal theory. However, where the claim is identical, a second lawsuit would normally be dismissed or, if filed simultaneously, consolidated.
We already know from the FromBIO proceedings that the court considered it important to address Kim Soo-hyun’s pending complaint against Garosero and members of Kim Sae-ron’s family. In this context, a new “joint lawsuit” appears unnecessary from the outset, since there is no single joint contract binding Kim Soo-hyun to all six companies. Each company has already acted separately on the basis of its own advertising agreement, and any purported consolidation would lack legal foundation.
Moreover, from a practical standpoint, such a lawsuit would be implausible: judicial fees in Korea are calculated on the total value of the claims and must be paid in advance. It is unlikely that six separate companies would assume collective liability for such costs when their interests are not contractually unified.
In short, this story is another piece of misinformation circulated without regard for legal realities, the kind of invention that could only convince those who prefer gossip over legal logic.

Amidst the legislature’s interest and intention to bring major changes in online behavior, as well as in the way false information is spread, as seen in the Kim Soo-hyun case, lawyer Jeong Gyeong-seok has made public how cyber defamation activities, and implicitly cyberbullying, can be stopped.
Attorney Jeong Gyeong-seok, who first successfully verified anonymous accounts on overseas platforms through the discovery system, has documented his work in the book "Cyber Wrecker War." This case-based book presents cyber defamation lawsuits, identity verification procedures, and examples of how legal systems can be utilized, making this unprecedented process accessible to the general public.
"Even if they're not celebrities, many ordinary people are harmed by videos insulting or attacking them from anonymous accounts. In fact, there have been cases where anonymous channel operators have been identified and lawsuits filed."
As lawsuits and accusations against cyber wreckers become more active, some argue that their era is passing and AI -powered fake news is becoming a hot topic. However, Jeong believes that "the essence has not changed," and that "the key lies in 'identification,'" as defamatory content is still created behind anonymity. As technology evolves, identifying the perpetrators becomes increasingly important.

"Ultimately, freedom of expression and responsibility must be balanced. Anonymity may be a public good that deserves protection, but if it infringes on the rights of others, it must be judged legally."
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/015/0005186379

In any case, the damage caused to him by being unable to continue his professional activity, losing projects, and facing the termination of contracts is substantial and undeniable. The assessment of such losses must be based on an economic evaluation of the actor’s income from all active contracts at the time the controversy arose, as well as on his recent earnings. Ultimately, even if he prevails in court, recovering these damages from those responsible will be extremely difficult. It is clear that nothing can realistically be recovered from KSR’s family, which raises the question of whether the precautionary measures already imposed on Kim Se-ui’s assets are, in fact, insufficient.

Fans of South Korean actor Kim Soo-hyun from around the world have launched a global campaign demanding justice and transparency in his case. They submitted letters to embassies and a petition to the President of South Korea, aiming not only to ensure a fair process for Kim Soo-hyun but also to set a precedent for defending truth and justice in similar cases worldwide. The movement, uniting fan groups across borders, emphasizes that they will not stop until the case is clarified, hoping to reinforce universal values of truth, transparency, and fundamental rights.

Now, I get it. She doesn’t see the answer, she doesn’t see the proof. Maybe what she really needs is an ophthalmologist… or perhaps just a little common sense. Thanks, bro. To put it simply: there’s no reason to waste time with such people. Let her keep talking to herself, for her own happiness.

I agree!

if we follow your logic, anyone could just post a photo online claiming someone is an abuser, and voilà, everyone should automatically believe it. Who even needs legal complaints or evidence, right? Rumors and unverified images are clearly enough to decide someone’s life. Until then, feel free to keep your opinion, it’s just so very wise

Making blanket claims about Korea or its justice system is irresponsible and misleading. Punishment is determined by law and evidence, not by biased assumptions or personal opinions. Spreading stereotypes about how a country treats women or offenders only fuels misinformation. Accusations must be based on verified facts, and anyone claiming otherwise is doing nothing but promoting ignorance and false narratives.

Making accusations of criminal behavior without verified evidence is itself a punishable offense. Spreading so-called ‘proof’ from unverified platforms is reckless, ignorant, and can constitute defamation or slander under the law. People must understand that false accusations can ruin lives and carry real legal consequences, so it is crucial to rely only on facts confirmed by competent authorities before making any claims.

I have already said that Kim Se-ui has too many complaints, and I hope he will be held responsible for everything he has done over time. Probably, when Kim Soo-hyun’s complaint is resolved, the punishment will be more severe for Kim Se-ui, since penalties usually increase if someone has already been convicted of a similar crime.

There are many discussions about changes in the law, as well as about prosecutors and courts. I am not satisfied with all of them, but the Korean Coogan Act is one of my personal wishes.

Attorney Sang-rock Kho of Law Firm Phil announced ongoing discussions with LKB, the current legal representative of actor Kim Soo-hyun, about potentially joining the case as an additional lawyer. A first meeting with LKB has already taken place, during which Phil’s team gained a direct understanding of the case’s seriousness.
The proposal is that Law Firm Phil would complement LKB’s work by contributing its expertise in investigation and prosecutorial response, particularly given the rising number of related civil and criminal proceedings. Importantly, Law Firm Phil has already filed a separate complaint against Kim Se-ui (aka Gar*zer*), showing its active involvement in addressing the cybercrimes connected to the matter.
Kim Soo-hyun’s management company, Gold Medalist, is reportedly reviewing the proposal positively, and no conflict of interest has been identified. While LKB remains in charge, the final decision on formally appointing Phil and dividing roles is still under discussion. If retained, Phil emphasized its commitment to truth, strict punishment of cybercrimes, and full support for Kim Soo-hyun’s rights.
This development could be seen as good news, since attorney Sang-rock Kho has publicly stated that he filed a criminal complaint (“형사 고소”) against Kim Se-ui and Bu Ji-seok. That may further strengthen Kim Soo-hyun’s case.

You make me laugh by saying that TikTok is/has “all the evidence.” Real evidence is what gets verified by experts and accepted in court, not what circulates on social media.
Under Korean law, a complaint for defamation can be made under Article 307 of the Korean Criminal Act, which has two paragraphs. The first provides punishment for defamation even if the statements are true, while the second applies when the statements are false.
If the complaint is made under paragraph (1), the only evidence required is proof that a public statement was made about a person. In Kim Soo Hyun’s case, the broadcasts on the Hoverlab YouTube channel were sufficient evidence for this.
If the complaint is based on paragraph (2), alleging that false statements were made, then the person filing such a complaint must prove that the statements/accusations are false. Otherwise, he risks being punished for making a slanderous denunciation against those who accused him. Kim Soo Hyun’s complaint was filed under paragraph (2), which is why forensic expertise on the evidence presented by Garosero and KSR’s family is required.
Do you really think Kim Soo Hyun would have filed such a complaint if he knew the rumors were true? And if KSR’s family or those YouTubers truly had real evidence, why haven’t they submitted it for forensic examination or in court? By avoiding that step, they are protecting themselves, because presenting false “evidence” in an official setting carries harsher consequences than just posting online.
So no, TikTok clips are not evidence. It’s better to wait for what the court and experts decide, instead of spreading unverified claims that might cause trouble for the people who repeat them.

Accusing someone of being a pedo is a very serious matter, and making such claims without verified evidence is not a joke either. Many public interviews are shaped by an actor’s team, and isolated clips on TikTok are not the same as proof. If there truly were evidence, official investigations would already exist.
You should also be aware that spreading unverified accusations can itself cross a legal line. Comments that suggest someone has committed criminal acts, without proof, may fall under slander or defamation laws. In other words, while you criticize his supposed “weird comments,” it’s worth reflecting on whether your own statements might be just as questionable, if not more so, because they risk harming someone’s reputation without basis.

Insulting others says far more about you than them. Think of it this way: break a bottle, water spills; open a book, words appear; shake a dust cloth, dust comes off. People are no different: what flows from you reveals exactly who you are.

Oh wow, you really remind me of another ‘divine’ user on this page, the so-called Goddess of her world. I do regret seeing the same message pop up from two different accounts before you deleted them… Divine multitasking, perhaps? Or is it déjà vu?

'Knockoff': Is Postponement the Answer?
If proven false, the hold will be a bigger blow
There's always a chance the controversy will be proven false. Then, only two things will remain: the lost expectations due to the broadcast delay, the production team's opportunity cost, and the overreaction framed as "burying the work in response to unverified allegations." On the other hand, a conditional release, when the truth is revealed later, will be recorded as "not hiding anything and managing it responsibly."
Disclosure is not a way of tolerance, but a way of accountability.
Releasing a work doesn't automatically mean condoning controversy. Platforms can manage the social repercussions of the release process through advance notice, moderation of promotional intensity, and post-release communication. This choice demonstrates a commitment to responsible distribution, not hiding controversy, rather than shielding a specific individual.
A precedent-setting choice.
"Knockoff" isn't just a single work. It's a precedent for similar situations to recur in the future. If the platform continues to hold back like it is now, it will likely repeat the same pattern. However, if it presents a responsible disclosure model this time, the content industry ecosystem will move beyond the "controversy = holdback" paradigm and adopt a new standard: "controversy = responsible disclosure." It also provides a minimal safety net that protects the continuity of creative labor and contracts.
https://www.frame-less.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=880

Looks like I can’t access the link. Can’t wait for your expert summary of it, oh wise one!