table of content table of content
- 1. The initial accusation: a six-year romance, from the age of 15?
- 2. The photos: "proof"... actually taken after she came of age
- 3. March 27: the conference that turned heads
- 4. The KakaoTalk of 2018: the real thing, but recontextualized and blended
- 5. When Kim Sae-ron's family contradicts Gaseyeon's narrative
- 6. "It's not about justice, it's about money".
- 7. Traditional media: passive relays or co-responsible?
- 8. The impact on Kim Soo-hyun: "It's not just a career break".
- 9. The parallel with Kim Sae-ron: the media spiral on both sides
- 10. A system that does little to punish cyber-wreckers
- 11. Platforms and politics: a tentative response
- 12. "It's time to address the human rights of artists".
- Who protects the human beings behind the screens?
On November 27, 2025, Kim Soo-hyun's lawyer gave an interview to journalist Park Jae-ryeong for the newspaper Media Today (source at the bottom of our article). In this interview, he takes a step-by-step look at the affair that has been shaking the actor and his entourage for almost 9 months, and how it all started with maliciously manipulated photos and conversations. He poses a disturbing question: what if all this revealed less a private scandal than a collective, media, judicial and ethical collapse?
On March 27, 2025, a press conference organized by the YouTube channel Garosero Research Institute (often abbreviated to Gaseyeon) blows up the Korean news. On the screen, photos, captures of KakaoTalk, a woman presented as the aunt of the late actress Kim Sae-ronand above all a heavy accusation: the actor Kim Soo-hyun had a relationship with her when she was a minor. In the minutes that followed, several major television networks broadcast the conference live.
9 months later, the case is far from closed, but the truth is coming out and raises questions about an entire media and societal system.
1. The initial accusation: a six-year romance, from the age of 15?
The journalist begins by going back to the heart of the accusations: on March 10, Gaseyeon asserts that Kim Soo-hyun and Kim Sae-ron had been a couple. from 2015 to 2021. In 2015, she would be 15, he 27.
The next day, a first photo of the "kiss on the cheek is published, purporting to have been taken when she was in ninth grade. The media followed: articles, rough cross-checks, headlines claiming that these were "photos from when she was a minor".
When asked about this point, Ko Sang-rok explains that, right from the start of the show, there was a clear intention:
"If you watch the March 11 broadcast, Kim Se-ui is deliberately vague about the date of the photo. He says something like, "We don't know exactly when this photo was taken." And right behind, the person introduced as Kim Sae-ron's aunt intervenes: "In the text she had written, it says 2016." It's all there: we never clearly say "it was when she was in ninth grade", but we set up this framework. It's a construction. You draw a frame: minorAnd we make it all fit.
2. The photos: "proof"... actually taken after she came of age
The journalist then asks him: Were these photos really taken when Kim Sae-ron was a minor?
Kho Sang-rock: "We have the original photo, as well as the shots taken just before and just after. Thanks to the file numbers and metadata, we were able to confirm that it dates from end February 2020. We explained this in detail to the police. The authorities have recognized this chronology. And on this precise point, the opposing party is no longer contesting."
The journalist then asked about the second "kiss on the cheek" photo, revealed on March 13, also claimed to have been taken when she was at college. Again, the same answer: "This photo has also been checked. It doesn't date from her minority period. In fact, if we take all the photos made public by Gaseyeon, they have all been taken after 2019This was at a time when Kim Sae-ron was already of age. We've said this consistently from the start. To this day, Gaseyeon has not provided any precise refutation of these dates."
In other words, the heart of the story (photos supposedly proving an illegal romance with an underage girl) rests, according to the defense, on a simple manipulation: make adult photos look like high school memories.
3. March 27: the conference that turned heads
On March 27, Gaseyeon took things to a new level: together with a member of the deceased's family, they organized a press conference. At the center of the staging: screenshots of a KakaoTalk conversation supposedly dating back to June 2016.
In these captures, we can read very intimate expressions, hearts, a tone that suggests a couple's relationship. Several major media outlets go so far as to headline that "KakaoTalk between an adult actor and a 17-year-old girl". have been revealed.
The journalist asks the question everyone has been asking: "Faced with such a press conference, with someone introduced as the family, with captures and a profile bearing Kim Soo-hyun's name, who would have imagined that these were manipulated documents?"
Ko Sang-rok answers bluntly: "The fact that there's a profile with his name and photo on it doesn't mean that the actor is the author. In this case, the person chatting with Kim Sae-ron is not Kim Soo-hyun. Firstly, when you cross-check the actor's schedule at the time, it's impossible for him to have exchanged such messages under these conditions. Secondly, the profile photo used on this account doesn't correspond to 2016: it's a photo taken in 2020."
It also reveals a very important point about the procedure:
"The police have officially requested that the original KakaoTalk files dated June 2016. The opposing party never provided raw data. They only provided paper prints. So far, they've been unable to deliver the original. This begs the question."
4. The KakaoTalk of 2018: the real thing, but recontextualized and blended
The journalist follows up with another set of messages, unveiled by Gaseyeon on March 28: this time, in 2018, with a selfie sent by Kim Soo-hyun himself. Here, there seems to be less doubt: it's definitely him in the photo. "Part of this conversation is authentic. We've never disputed it. At the time, Kim Soo-hyun was on military service, and he sent a message to say that he had little time during his leave, and that he was sorry he couldn't see her. It's a possible exchange between two people who are close. Yes, the tone is warm, there are emojis, hearts. But a warm tone between two people who get along well doesn't prove a loving relationship in Gaseyeon's sense of the word."
Where the defense speaks of handlingIn this block of messages, some passages were actually sent by Kim Soo-hyun, others were not. "In this block of messages, some passages were actually sent by Kim Soo-hyun, others were not. For example, he is credited with a message from April 2, 2018, of the type: "I want to see you now", in a very "couple" dynamic. On that day, however, he was on a mission in the DMZ, without access to his phone.
So we're faced with a construction: we take real fragments, insert invented passages, and at the end, present the whole as one continuous conversation."
5. When Kim Sae-ron's family contradicts Gaseyeon's narrative
Another passage in the interview sheds important light on the role of Kim Sae-ron's family and how their position was allegedly used.
Ko Sang-rok explains that during the preparation of a program for SBS ("궁금한 이야기 Y" / Curious Story Y), the legal representative of the deceased's family took a very different stance from that shown in the YouTube videos: "The lawyer for Kim Sae-ron's relatives told the SBS team that the family had not never tells Gaseyeon: "These are photos from when she was a minor." In other words, the reference to "photos from middle-school days" comes from Gaseyeon. It's an interpretation they added themselves."
According to Ko, this contradiction had a direct consequence: the SBS report was paused. "The show is on hold. We were in a context where the results of the police investigation were approaching, and neither we nor the network wanted to give the impression of creating a new controversy."
6. "It's not about justice, it's about money".
The journalist then asked him about Gaseyeon's motivations. Officially, the channel says it wants to "to defend the memory of the deceased". The lawyer opposes it head-on:
"How can you say it's for the good of the deceased when, in reality, you're trampling on her dignity? The moment you make false accusations, the accused party is bound to defend himself. And in the process, elements of the deceased's past that the public didn't need to know are exposed. It's the opposite of protection."
For him, the actual mechanics are much more trivial: "Let's be clear: it's a question of profit. The more shocking the content, the more subscribers it attracts, and the more donations and revenue it generates. It's a business model based on the exploitation of human drama.
7. Traditional media: passive relays or co-responsible?
The lawyer also stresses the decisive role of the traditional media:
"If only the Gaseyeon videos had told the story, many people would have had doubts. They would have said to themselves, "Maybe it's exaggerated, maybe it's staged." The problem is that the big chains, the general news media, picked up on these accusations as if they were consolidated. We saw headlines affirming the "relationship with a minor" as fact. The impact was immense."
He insists on what, in his opinion, would have been enough to avoid the collapse: "If the dominant media discourse had been: 'Let's wait for the results of the police investigation', we wouldn't be where we are today."
8. The impact on Kim Soo-hyun: "It's not just a career break".
When asked how the actor lives, Ko Sang-rok hints at a much deeper level of suffering than the public imagines. "When you listen to Kim Soo-hyun talk about what he went through, you think he might not have survived.
Some people say, "Anyway, he's rich, he'll be back later, his career will take off again." But people don't realize what it means to be at the center of such a campaign, when your name is associated with words like "underage", "crime", "scandal" on every platform. This isn't just a career break. It's an experience that breaks a human being."
He also talks about family: "The anger of his loved ones towards Gaseyeon is immense. They've seen someone they love falter. That kind of pain doesn't go away."
9. The parallel with Kim Sae-ron: the media spiral on both sides
"What's ironic is that the late Kim Sae-ron also suffered greatly during his period of reflection after his alcohol-related accident, as the celebrity media reported in detail on events that, on the face of it, were of little journalistic interest, such as his outings with friends. We can't help feeling that the critics are targeting the wrong people.
Celebrities are in a very vulnerable position. It's not a question of whether they make a lot of money or not. The question is whether it's acceptable to apply moral standards to celebrities that we don't even expect of politicians or senior civil servants, and to plunge them into the abyss at the slightest opportunity, with no regard for the informative value of the information or for verifying it accurately, and with no regard for the suffering of the person concerned, whether they die or not.
I don't know if Korean popular culture, which has absolutely no respect for the fundamental rights of artists and treats them as content to be consumed, will be able to continue like this."
10. A system that does little to punish cyber-wreckers
How many legal proceedings have been brought against Gaseyeon? On the criminal front, there are 5 cases :
- defamation under the law on information and communication networks,
- distribution of a photo taken in the domestic sphere (Kim Soo-hyun washing dishes),
- facts covered by the law on harassment / stalking,
- threats,
- and false accusations (false complaint).
As far as stalking is concerned, provisional measures have already been ordered. We hope to have the results of the investigation by the end of the year.
On the civil side: "We have filed an action for damages in the amount of 120 billion won. Property, including Kim Se-ui's home, is subject to precautionary measures."
But despite this, the lawyer speaks of a strong sense of powerlessness: "We see defamatory and untruthful content being disseminated repeatedly, and yet the means to stop it remain very limited. The authorities tend to consider that this is a 'debate of opinion' that should be settled by public criticism. But we've gone beyond that. Today, with AI, it's very easy to manufacture "evidence". There should have been faster investigations, searches and equipment seizures right from the start. As long as Kim Se-ui is not taken into custody, he will continue to broadcast."
11. Platforms and politics: a tentative response
"YouTube is content, at best, to cut monetization. But even without advertising revenue, it's still possible to receive direct donations, or generate indirect profits via pressure, threats, "arrangements" made behind the scenes. As long as broadcasting itself is not stopped, the machine keeps on turning."
At the political level, he recalls that the President has asked his government to consider measures against profit-driven "fake news", such as the punitive damages. Several parliamentary hearings have also heard from designers who have fallen victim to "cyber-wreckers". But for the time being, the day-to-day reality for victims is not changing fast.
12. "It's time to address the human rights of artists".
The interview ends on what could be the real issue of the whole affair: not just the innocence of an actor, but the way a company treats the people it exposes.
"Our society has sometimes been indifferent to the damage done to celebrities. Isn't there a tendency to think that, since they earn a lot of money and are famous, they should have to put up with these harms? It's only recently that things seem to be gradually changing. In other countries, too, there is concern about the tendency to condemn a person according to strict criteria, and then to lose interest in their fate altogether. It's time to take a closer look at the human rights of popular artists."
This is where the Kim Soo-hyun affair goes beyond a simple "celebrity scandal".
Who protects the human beings behind the screens?
The whole affair raises questions that fans of Kpop and Kdramas know well for their favorite celebrities:
- How far can we go in monitoring and dissecting an actor's private life?
- Why do we tolerate violence against stars that we would never accept against someone close to us?
- Who bears responsibility when a lie is amplified by the algorithm, TV channels and online comments?
Here we are faced with a system failure The failure of media scrutiny, the failure of platform regulation, the failure of social empathy.
Thank you, excellent article! Fighting KSH!