Actor Kim Su-hyun (left) and the late Kim Sae-ron. Courtesy of their respective agencies

The back-and-forth over the truth between the bereaved family of the late Kim Sae-ron and actor Kim Su-hyun has entered round four. While the family additionally released forensic material containing past conversations with Kim Su-hyun in an effort to substantiate the ‘underage dating allegations’, the side of Kim Su-hyun counters that it was “nothing more than habitually warm phrasing,” calling it an attempt to muddy the essence.

On the 4th, Attorney Bu Ji-seok, legal representative for the bereaved family of Kim Sae-ron, issued a fourth press release stating that “Attorney Go Sang-rok for Kim Su-hyun said we should wait for the investigative results, yet he is using media play to pin a fabrication frame on the family,” and disclosed forensic data of KakaoTalk conversations from April 2018. In response, Attorney Go Sang-rok for Kim Su-hyun immediately issued a rebuttal, saying “the family keeps repeating material already addressed without explaining the five key questions,” and strongly criticized, “Stop dredging up the past while claiming to protect the deceased’s honor.” Here are the core points of contention where their claims differ.

■ Issue 1. “I want to see you right now”… Lovers’ talk, or habitual expressions?

The bereaved family argues that in a KakaoTalk chat dated April 9, 2018, Kim Su-hyun told Kim Sae-ron “I want to see you right now” and “I love you,” and since Attorney Go (for Kim Su-hyun) defined such phrases in an interview as things couples say, this amounts to admitting that the two dated while Kim Sae-ron was a minor.

The side of Kim Su-hyun responded that this was nothing more than Kim’s habitually affectionate manner. Attorney Go said, “Given an actor’s personality and the nature of the job, they often express interest, affection, and care toward staff, colleagues, and juniors. No colleague mistakes this for a romantic relationship. The deceased did not misunderstand it at the time either, but the family is forcibly stitching it together now.”

Forensic material released by the side of the late Kim Sae-ron. The bereaved side claims the last digits 9859 are Kim Su-hyun’s number

■ Issue 2. In 2018, what was the relationship between the two?

The bereaved family continues to assert that the deceased dated Kim Su-hyun while she was a minor, saying, “The forensic data have not been altered and were submitted to investigative authorities. These conversations are definitive material evidence showing that when Kim Sae-ron was a minor, she had a deep relationship with Kim Su-hyun. Drop the fabrication frame.”

The side of Kim Su-hyun counters, “From 2017 to 2018, the deceased had another partner, and actor Kim Su-hyun was aware of this. Conversely, Kim Su-hyun also had a partner at that time. Affectionate conversations exchanged despite knowing they each had someone else are now being repackaged as proof of dating.”

■ Issue 3. The validity of the ‘key evidence’

Regarding the materials, the bereaved family said, “Since Attorney Go (for Kim Su-hyun) demanded disclosure of the original, we are releasing the forensic extraction data,” warning, “Even though it has been confirmed that it was captured on April 12, 2018, he claims he cannot verify it and is branding the family as fabricators. Stop this meaningless fabrication frame and wait for the investigative results.”

The side of Kim Su-hyun denounced it as “a reheating of material already refuted,” adding, “The family quietly removed the core materials claimed by the Garo Sero Institute (the 2016 chat and the April 13, 2018 KakaoTalk) after realizing they were not conversations with Kim Su-hyun. If these were real proof of dating, Kim Sae-ron would have used these chats in last March’s ‘Bitsak incident’, but she could not at the time. Enough. Stop the broken-record claims and answer the five key questions.”

As the truth battle continues even after the deceased’s passing, public fatigue is only growing. The side of Kim Su-hyun says the family is muddying the point by disclosing old KakaoTalks and reiterates that they should answer the five core questions: ▲ Is it correct that the family has never thought or claimed that “the deceased suffered because of actor Kim Su-hyun and this led to death”? ▲ Is it correct that the family never said the photos disclosed by the Garo Sero Institute were “taken during her minor years”? ▲ Is it the family’s position that the “thousands of photos” the Garo Sero Institute claimed would prove the deceased’s relationships as a minor prior to the summer of 2019 do not actually exist and are merely the Institute’s unilateral assertion? ▲ In the June 2016 KakaoTalk “When can I hold you and fall asleep?”, is the sender name “Unknown,” and is it correct that the only basis for concluding the other party was the actor (Kim Su-hyun) is that the deceased’s sibling said so? ▲ Regarding the April 13, 2018 KakaoTalk (“If you are not going to make an effort, I will not meet you”), is it correct that only a cropped screenshot exists, and from this alone it is not even possible to identify whether the sender was the deceased? As Attorney Go argues, unless the various questions surrounding the family’s claims are resolved, suspicion and doubt toward both sides will likely persist. Accordingly, there is a growing public call to await the investigative results rather than damaging each other’s reputations by pushing only their own assertions.