Key Summary
- Kim Se-ui, head of the YouTube channel Gaseyeon, was removed from the courtroom during the first hearing in a case involving defamation and other charges.
- The Seoul Central District Court held the hearing on November 11 and later continued with testimony from actor Kim Soo-hyun.
- The court closed the session to the public after the proceedings began, citing privacy concerns linked to the charge under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act.
- Kim Se-ui repeated his denial of the allegations and again asserted that Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron had been in a relationship.
- The next hearing is scheduled for November 13.
Main Story
The first hearing in the criminal case against Kim Se-ui, the representative of the YouTube channel Gaseyeon, was held at the Seoul Central District Court on November 11. The case includes charges of defamation under the network law and violations of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act.
Kim Se-ui appeared in court in prison clothing after being indicted while in custody over allegations that he spread false claims about actor Kim Soo-hyun. Kim Soo-hyun arrived at the courthouse shortly before 2 p.m. and entered through an underground passage to avoid reporters waiting at the main entrance. He then testified as a witness.
Because the charges included an offense under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, the court moved the hearing behind closed doors about 30 minutes after it began and ordered the public out of the courtroom to protect the privacy of the alleged victim. Kim Soo-hyun’s testimony therefore took place in private, while Kim Se-ui waited in a separate listening room rather than face him directly.
According to the report, Kim Se-ui objected to that arrangement. During the hearing, he denied all charges and repeated his claim that the relationship between Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron was real. He also rejected allegations that he manipulated an audio file involving Kim Sae-ron, saying there had been no alteration or editing. At one point, he argued that AI manipulation could not have been carried out two months before the public disclosure and one month before Kim Sae-ron’s death.
As his voice grew louder, the judges warned him not to shout and said he would be restrained if the behavior continued. Kim Se-ui also asked the court to approve bail, saying that evidence review and reporting are not possible while he remains detained, and requesting an opportunity to fight the case fairly against Kim Soo-hyun.
After about four and a half hours of closed-door questioning, the proceedings were reopened to the public. The hearing ended after 7:30 p.m. The report said Kim Soo-hyun focused his testimony on stating that Kim Se-ui’s claims were false. The court plans to continue the trial on November 13.
Background
According to the article, Kim Se-ui first raised allegations in March of last year that Kim Soo-hyun had dated Kim Sae-ron when she was underage. He later also suggested that pressure over debt repayment from Kim Soo-hyun’s side had directly affected Kim Sae-ron before her death.
Kim Se-ui was indicted and detained in June this year on charges that he used generative AI to fabricate falsehoods by manipulating Kim Sae-ron’s voice, thereby defaming Kim Soo-hyun. The indictment also includes allegations that he unlawfully disclosed private photos of Kim Soo-hyun and threatened to expose personal material.
The article also notes that Kim Soo-hyun’s side has asked the court to delete and prohibit reposting of Gaseyeon YouTube videos containing allegedly defamatory claims, and is awaiting a judicial ruling.
Items Requiring Further Verification
- Kim Se-ui’s assertion that the relationship between Kim Soo-hyun and the late Kim Sae-ron was real.
- His claim that no AI-based manipulation or editing was used in the audio file involving Kim Sae-ron.
- The argument that AI manipulation would have been impossible based on the timing he described.
- The report’s statement that Kim Soo-hyun testified that Kim Se-ui’s claims were false, as this is presented through the article rather than direct quotation.
- Any legal conclusions, including the scope and outcome of the charges, remain pending until the court issues further rulings.