The Kim Soo-hyun Controversy and the Tilted Scales
Recently, a controversy surrounding actor Kim Soo-hyun split my home in two.
My wife was firm. “We have the audio recordings, the text messages, the testimonies. What is there left to doubt?”
The public mood at the time was much the same. News outlets, online communities, and comment sections were all racing in a single direction. In the eyes of the public, he had already become an irredeemable villain. The verdict, it seemed, had already been handed down.
‘Everyone says he’s guilty. What more is there to say?’
But somewhere in my mind, a cold doubt lingered. No legal proceedings had even begun. Nothing had been proven with certainty. Strictly speaking, guilt had not been established—and yet the public was already tearing down a man’s world.
A Question Offered by the Talmud
A passage from the Talmud, read years ago, crossed my mind.
“If everyone agrees that the accused is guilty, let him go free.”
This is not a declaration of innocence. It is closer to a warning—one that urges us to be wary of the crowd’s overwhelming certainty, however convincing it may appear.
As everyone echoed cries of “guilty,” a quiet thought surfaced in me: ‘What if there’s a part of this story where he is genuinely wronged?’
Hoping to check the facts for myself, I looked up videos by cyber-wreckers—the online clout-chasers who feed on scandal. The more I watched, the deeper my discomfort grew. Consuming someone else’s misfortune for entertainment left me feeling hollowed out. Something was clearly wrong.
Destruction Is Easy, Restoration Is Nearly Impossible
The source of that discomfort became clear: it was the collapse of proportion.
Pushing someone into the mud is grotesquely easy and light. One click, one sensational video, is enough to drag a person’s reputation through the dirt and turn a profit from it. Rebuilding a life shattered before the facts are even proven, on the other hand, is close to impossible.
Destroying a person is terrifyingly easy. Even when the truth eventually comes to light, a life torn apart rarely returns to what it was.
Where I Choose to Look First
This is why I remain wary of the crowd’s hasty certainty.
At the same time, I have no wish to hide behind “reserving judgment” while ignoring the pain someone is actually made to bear.
The risk a cyber-wrecker takes and the ruin a victim suffers are not remotely equal in weight. One person builds wealth by uploading a video; another is pushed to the edge of life by that same video.
The scale is tipped far too heavily.
So these days, before deciding who is right, I ask this first: “Who is bearing the full weight of this catastrophe?”
That is why I cannot watch the crowd’s careless certainty—or the cyber-wreckers who feed on it—with an easy mind.
Aftermath
When I first wrote this, public opinion had already swung entirely to one side. Since then, the tide has shifted. Investigators determined that key evidence behind the allegations showed signs of AI manipulation, and the YouTuber who spread it was later arrested and indicted. Legal action from the bereaved family, meanwhile, remains ongoing, and the case has yet to reach its final resolution.
My intention here is not to render a final verdict on right and wrong. Rather, this case stands as a reminder of how quickly public conviction can form—and how easily it can later be shaken. Refraining from hasty judgment remains the one principle I still choose to hold onto.