Lawyer Lee Ji-hoon from 'Knowing Lawyer' criticized Kim Soo-hyun, who is facing allegations of grooming offenses related to the late Kim Sae-ron.
On the 17th, a video titled "Villains and Criminals (feat. Kim Soo-hyun)" was uploaded to the 'Knowing Lawyer' channel.
On this day, Lawyer Lee Ji-hoon pointed out that Gold Medalist, Kim Soo-hyun's agency, explained the grooming allegations against the late Kim Sae-ron by stating, "Kim Sae-ron and I dated from the summer of 2019, after Kim Sae-ron became an adult, until the fall of 2020."
He said, "Kim Soo-hyun has issued a statement. There are two points. The first is that he did not date when she was a minor. However, the emphasis seems to be that it is not about whether she was a minor but that they did date. They did date, but she was not a minor; they dated when she was an adult. So what we remember is that they did date. Didn’t he say he didn't date? Isn’t that a lie? If that’s the case, the part 'they dated when she was an adult' also becomes less credible. He should not have done that."
He continued, "Until recently, he had claimed it was false information and that they had never dated, but now that photos have been released, he says they did date and that it was when she was an adult, making that statement hard to believe. That is a problem."
Lawyer Lee Ji-hoon stated, "The issue concerning Kim Soo-hyun is whether they dated when she was an adult, and the claim for the repayment of 700 million won was not pressure but an act to avoid embezzlement by the company. It seems that is how he is arguing it." He asked, "What is the reason Kim Soo-hyun’s side acknowledged that they dated when she was an adult? Because there are photos, they cannot deny they dated. If they deny dating, it could be seen as playing with someone. If they were in such a close state, kissing on the cheek, and they weren’t dating, then it would only mean they were being played with. So he says they dated. However, they are stating they dated when she was an adult. This is to say he does not want to be seen as a criminal, arguing that this does not fall under the sexual crime laws for minors in our country."
He argued, "There are laws that protect minors, such as the Criminal Code, the Protection of Children and Youth Act, and the Child Welfare Act, but he claims it does not apply because they dated when she was an adult. Is that okay? There are times when they are minors and times when they are adults. But is it acceptable to date when they are adults? We must have a clear standard for minors and adults, which creates a definite point in time. For instance, if a person turns 18 on July 1, 2020, then is there a significant difference between someone on June 30 and this person on July 1? Biologically, there is no significant difference. There is no choice but to define adults and minors legally based on the birthday."
He added, "So if they dated when she was an adult? Then yesterday she was a minor, but from today she is an adult. Is it acceptable to start dating from this point? My niece just became a college student. I always tell her, 'You are legally an adult, but your judgment is immature, and you have no social experience. You always assume you are only interacting with your friends from middle and high school, but the world isn’t like that.' I continuously tell her that she must be cautious in her relationships. Knowing through experience is the worst. One should be able to know different types of people without having to experience everything."
Lawyer Lee Ji-hoon questioned, "Just because you turned 20, doesn't mean you are truly an adult. Is it acceptable to date someone like that? A The Man from Nowhere who is 12 years older? Just avoiding the legal aspect, does that mean there is no problem at all?" He stated, "If one is a good person, a good adult, then they wouldn’t do such a thing. Even if you are an adult, you might still be immature. College students are still students and don’t know anything. But does that mean they can just date? Let’s think about that."
In particular, he expressed a negative view on the agency that initially denied the dating rumors but later acknowledged only the dating rumors. Lawyer Lee Ji-hoon pointed out, "Didn’t Kim Sae-ron post a photo of the two of them last year? But after seeing that photo, they claimed it was completely unfounded and that they had never dated. Because of that, Kim Sae-ron received criticism for 'self-dating'. She found herself in a difficult position. I believe this contributed to one of the reasons for her passing. There may be many reasons, but this happened. Then now to say they dated, but it was after she became an adult, means she was lying before. Shouldn’t there be an apology?"
He continued, "If one has lied, shouldn’t they feel sorry? Shouldn’t they apologize? But they have not said a single word of apology regarding that statement. This statement is very important. However, considering the pain Kim Sae-ron must have experienced from being told they dated when they were not, shouldn’t there be at least an apology for that?"
He added, "I don’t know if they didn’t feel sorry at all and thus didn’t apologize, or if they were afraid that admitting to being sorry would lead to legal responsibility, but this could categorize them as a villain. Are they not a bad person? If they understood the importance of this statement, they should not have done this. If they changed their statement, there should be an explanation for why it was changed, and they should have at least conveyed an apology to the late Kim Sae-ron, who was hurt by it."
Meanwhile, the family of the late Kim Sae-ron claimed on the YouTube channel 'Garo-Seorro Research Institute' (hereafter 'Gaseyeon') starting from the 10th that Kim Sae-ron had been dating Kim Soo-hyun since she was 15 years old, for six years. In addition, they alleged that the late Kim Sae-ron was sent two content certificates regarding a penalty compensation of 700 million won resulting from a drunk-driving accident as a form of coercion.
In response, Gold Medalist issued an additional statement on the 18th, stating, "Gold Medalist has never claimed damages against Kim Sae-ron for any reason," and "We have never pressured Kim Sae-ron to repay any debt," explaining that "the second content certificate was simply a legal process notification and was merely meant to convey our willingness to discuss repayment methods and timelines."
[Photo] Knowing Lawyer
[OSEN]