TheStarsOfTheLion

I'm not here to say you're wrong, or to dismiss your opinion, but I would like to offer a point of view from another angle.

When the pregnancy was announced, Than was 18 year old, just a college freshman. No professional education, no job, and seemingly no well-off financial background. How would he fare to be a young father at that age? How would he be now with his study, his career chance, his financial if he must take care of a young child since he's 18?

And Than was very young then, just got to be 18, and younger before that. Young, immature, the age that usually not sure of what they want in life and their interest flickers as they have so many time and so many new things to experience. There are reasons when they say that young love never last, while it's exaggerated and not true in it absolute expression, I think it does reflect a pattern. Which can lead to insecurity of the older partner.

I live in the reality where Mac is Mac and August is August and they're just actors acting the roles of high-school students. It's also the reality where real couples with age gap can cause discomfort for some people since it doesn't strike their fancy, but it's not something to be frown upon when it's legal and up to the couples' free will to do that.
Not sure which reality you come from, though.

This series may not be as good as Stay With Me, but the original one is not actually that good when I re-watch it recently.

"the boy just started learning how to ride his bike without training wheels" - You don't seem to live in reality. In some places, such as US, 16 year-olds can already drive cars legally. Bike? More like motorbike.

What you said may have sense, but in a sentimental way.
What I aim for is objective: Forwarding an evidence of crime is not something to be criticized.
My point isn't about Home or Kan, but the criticizing on the submitting of evidence. Even if that submitting is unfavorable to their favorite person, people should have a rational mind to deal with it instead of turning on the reporter of crime.

P.S. I'm indifferent to every characters in the show, except for Pangpang whom I like.

1.2.4.5. She is bound to Home on estate matter, not his hit-and-run matter to claim her act of forwarding evidence as unlawful.
And lawyers keeps their client's evidence's secret with the pretext that they don't know of it, don't hold onto it. They cannot even say that they don't know of the evidence, but try to evade talking about it for they aren't allowed to lie to the court. Not to mention the evidence in their hands. Concealing evidence of a crime is a criminal offense.

3. That document is NOT the evidence she posted. The recorded talk is stolen, but not the video of the incident.

Despite you claim to be "the factual person", you don't use fact.

The characters are fictional, but the audience and their attitude are real. It's real people expressing their attitude on the act of disclosing the evidence on the rich that used money to hide their crime.

I don't mind the lack of kissing. But I think they can still pull off a kiss scene without real kiss.
Like with the show Fourever You that just come out, right off the bat in show we have a kiss scene. However, I'm positive that the actors didn't touch their lips. Their mouth moved toward each other, then the scene was cut and we see it from behind the actor's back, which their mouth's position was obscured. Then the door was open and we only see their face move toward the door in fright.

They tried to do the shadow kiss, though. I think it can be artistic, like instead of showing the characters, their reflection on water can be showed. Though, I feel the shadow kiss was blank, maybe because the atmosphere wasn't set right.

Yeah. My words may have been harsh, though I want to deliver the point strongly, for I think it's a serious matter.
I have read a case in the past, the Burning Sun club event in South Korea. In it, some K-pop idols was involved in drug dealing, sexual assault, ridiculing woman, and there are evidences for it; yet some of their fans still stood up for them, denied the truth, even blamed the raped victims as must have wanting it, readily blurring the line of right and wrong to the favor of their bias. Relating that to this here, I found it concerning so I reacted strongly.

"this is not a competition, you know?" - Then why must you have the need to make that comment to make it as one? Nitpicking much?

The goal I had when I created the original post was reached, so it's a win for me.

You tried to justify your previous words, and end up falsify information.

"Most lawyer after finding this out will continue to work with their clients knowing not to trust them or remove themselves. But by law, they still have to keep it secret unless they have a judge order them to release said information. And those are the facts." - No. Those are not facts.
The fact is, by law, the person knowing of a crime and having evidence but not reporting can be considered an accomplice. Laws do not encourage people, whether it's lawyers or not, to withhold evidence.

"As mentioned below, she stole the documents, blackmailed and even lied about how the accident came to be." - She didn't stole it. The evidence was in the hand of polices already. She acquired it from the police's hand, and yes by blackmailing, but the police won't be able to prove that it's blackmail because it will in turn reveal that the policeman withhold evidence from the case. Then the policeman will be the one who's lawfully wrong, not her.
"With enough evidence any lawyer can proof she has something against the family and is sabotaging them." - And still do not affect the truth and power of the evidence submitted.

How laws work is not the same as how the rich abuse the laws.
The rich having their way with it only affect the person upholding the laws. It neither affect how the laws is written nor making the person follows the laws legally wrong.
"Lawfully, she is wrong. This is her client. Going behind his back and then exposing that sort of message." - This sentence of yours is wrong, made in an attempt to criticize Kan's act of forward the evidence - as illegal. Why? Because you favor Home so you toss right and wrong to the dog.

Reporting a crime and forwarding the evidence is legally right. Encouraged by laws.

P.S. It's Yai who is the family's attorney, not Kan. She only handle their estate matter.

Kan did give Home some time. She had already got the clip in the previous episode but she hadn't posted right away. She urged Home to confess in the beginning of this episode and let him have his time. However, him being chicken out continuously may has worn her patience out. Add in the fact that the victim here is someone he is close to now, and yet he still cannot confess; if the victim would have been some stranger he met at a mall then would he even consider confessing? That what-if doesn't happen indeed, but it can affect Kan's trust on Home.
That is sentimental talking.

I will return to being objective.
I don't try to pick who is at fault, whether it's Home or his uncle or someone else. What I talked about is the comments made here. If they has been expressed in the like of "oh, I hope Kan can wait for some more", then I wouldn't have created the post. However, the comments made - which I have quoted above - carry a different expression: that Kan was wrong for posting the evidence. That it's because they love the character so they demand the reporting of evidence need to be for convenience of the perpetrator. That attitude shouldn't be encouraged. More so when we have cases in real life that really need evidence like the hit-and-run I mentioned, or cases like Burning Sun scandal in South Korea where overzealous fans stayed in denial to the drug dealing and sexual assault happened because it's their idols the perpetrators.
TV drama is fictional, but its audience and their opinion are real.

Still, ultimately, after I made the post, it seems there is no more criticizing on Kan's act of forwarding the evidence. I will take that as a win then.

"Look I was never hating Kan anyway." - Yet when I call out on those who "hate" and "boo" her for doing the right and legal thing, you tried to make excuse for those people. And put words into my mouth.
"Ok you decided to hate Home already." - Where did I said that? I said he must own up to his actions for real, not just in his leisure and easy way. Is that hate?
The main point of my post was the fact that people criticize Kan for reporting Home. The person knowing of a crime but not report it can be considered as an accomplice, mind you.

"I told that it's not her place to reveal it. It was just a reaction when I watched the episode." - To tell it's not the place of a person to report a crime when they have the evidence is a problem in itself. It's a thoughtless and heartless attitude deserved to be called out.
Yet you tried to opposed me calling it out, twice. Is it really a reaction for just a moment?
And there is not just your "it's not her place to reveal it"; I already quote them above, check for yourself.

"And while exposing brings attention, as you mentioned, there is not guarantee that this will lead to the sort of justice one seeks." - But still better than let it be buried into oblivion and unknown. Even if wrong-doer can escape the laws with their money, there will be society.

However, the most important thing here is that people attacked Kan for exposed a crime. All of but-this and but-that seems like you're trying to make excuse for them.

What is your reason to attack a crime reporter, if you're not bias to the wrong-doer yourself?
If it's not you and you're not one of those who attack Kan for uploading Home' crime evidence, then why are you spooked now and try to talk for them?

You said exposed evidence of a crime committed is lawfully wrong, that because he is her client so she must protect his criminal act.
Your bias on Home clouded your mind.

Re-read what I wrote yourself and use your read comprehension ability.

Sympathizing with Home's redemption is one thing but criticizing Kan for reporting is another. Kan can upload the clip right after she got it from the previous episode and none can fault her.
"Fictional" is not an excuse to attack the person reporting a crime.
Home is fictional so you back him up, but so is Kan. She is also fictional, but being fictional in a drama didn't stop these shit from being thrown at her:
"Yes she better has a valid reason for doing that."
"I hate Kan! I knew something was off about her since the beginning"
"Boooooo Kan. Like why couldn't she wait for him to say it?"
"Nobody should ever out anyone, regardless if it's sexuality or any kind if confession. Poor Home."
"Kan. It's not her place to reveal things like this."
"For reall!!! He was dead set on doing something right for peach and kan literally stepped over everything"
"Same. She should have been straightforward with Home, tell him that she knows and ask him what he is going to do with Peach."
Double standard. Whatever it takes to protect the wrong-doer was long as that's your bias, hm?

"Yes she better has a valid reason for doing that."
"I hate Kan! I knew something was off about her since the beginning"
"Boooooo Kan. Like why couldn't she wait for him to say it?"
"Nobody should ever out anyone, regardless if it's sexuality or any kind if confession. Poor Home."
"Kan. It's not her place to reveal things like this."
"For reall!!! He was dead set on doing something right for peach and kan literally stepped over everything"
"Same. She should have been straightforward with Home, tell him that she knows and ask him what he is going to do with Peach."

Hm. Because it's fiction, it's okay to back up a hit-and-runner, and the person reporting that crime got called out, and she is required to have a "story" to report a crime.
Then I'm not ashamed to be disrespectful. It's well deserved.