Kim Ga-yeon explains why she refused leniency for malicious commenters

Actress Kim Ga-yeon has revealed why she has largely refused requests for leniency from those who posted malicious comments about her. While various excuses were presented, ranging from needing to "buy baby diapers" to health issues, the standard Kim set was simple: one must take responsibility for their own actions.

On the 11th, Kim and Lim Yo-hwan shared stories regarding malicious comments and legal lawsuits on their YouTube channel, 'Kim Ga-yeon & Lim Yo-hwan's Game Couple.' As Lim mentioned that Kim has a history of suing more than 100 malicious commenters, specific cases that had remained undisclosed for a long time emerged.

According to Kim, among the malicious commenters, there was someone who, facing criminal punishment, emphasized that they were a father with a young child to request leniency. They even appealed to her, stating that the fine was too burdensome and that they needed to buy diapers for their child immediately.

However, Kim did not accept this. She revealed that she told the officer in charge, "Please tell him to work harder like a father should to pay the fine, and to live his best life so he doesn't do anything shameful to his child in the future."

What Kim took issue with was not the economic burden itself. Rather, she drew a line against the attitude of shifting responsibility outward by citing family support or personal circumstances when criminal proceedings are underway due to one's own actions.

She particularly emphasized that fines resulting from insult charges are not mere administrative sanctions, but criminal punishments. Her statement, "Fines for insult charges are not administrative fines. A fine is also a criminal punishment," reflects her awareness that online words and writings can also be subject to legal responsibility depending on the case.

Kim's firm stance did not form suddenly. When the relationship with Lim was first revealed and comments mocking their age difference followed, she endured them to a significant extent. However, she explained that the situation changed once the existence of her daughter became known.

In particular, when posts appeared that maliciously synthesized her daughter's photos or added profane and sexual expressions, Kim took direct action. She judged that attacks against herself and attacks targeting her family, especially her child, could not be viewed on the same level.

Kim collected evidence by organizing malicious posts by date and content and manually marking the problematic expressions. She mentioned that at one point, the organized materials exceeded 80 cases. She explained that she put great effort into recording them, considering that even deleted posts could serve as important evidence in future proceedings.

A more striking part is that she did not leave all procedures to legal representatives. Kim revealed that she personally looked up laws related to herself, recalling her experience taking elective law classes during her university years and the law book her father gave her when she was young. She said that at the time, there were not many accumulated practical cases regarding celebrities suing for malicious comments, so she even had to explain the procedures to her lawyers.

Through this process, Kim earned the nickname "Queen of Lawsuits." The important thing is that she did not advocate for indiscriminate lawsuits, but rather established the principle that malicious attacks targeting family should not lose their accountability due to the spatial characteristics of the online environment.

That is not to say Kim only advocated for punishment without exception in all situations. Rather, the case that most clearly demonstrates her principle is the instance where she withdrew a lawsuit for only one person among numerous malicious commenters. That person was a middle school student at the time.

Kim stated that she initially had no intention of showing leniency simply because the person was a minor. However, her thoughts changed when she received word through the police that the student's parents wished to meet her in person. She recalled that the student she met at the police station had a terrified expression, and one of the parents was using crutches.

The student's story was that they participated in online community activities to avoid being excluded from their peer group, and because it was difficult to write malicious posts themselves, they copied and posted text written by others. According to Kim, the student was an excellent student at school but chose wrong actions to avoid being alienated from their peers.

After hearing the student's explanation, Kim finally judged that the situation required correction rather than punishment. She told the parents that since the student has a future, she would withdraw the complaint on the condition that they use this as a turning point to never repeat such actions.

The reason she had not disclosed this case for nearly 10 years was to protect the student. She believed that if the story were known through broadcasts or news, the student might be forced to revisit their past even after becoming an adult. Kim added that the student is likely at university age now and expressed her hope that they are living a good life.

Ultimately, what Kim demonstrated was not a simple principle of "sue everyone for malicious comments," but rather a question of where to set the boundaries of responsibility. She was firm when adults tried to evade responsibility for their actions by citing economic hardship or family support, but after confirming a minor committed wrongdoings under peer pressure, she chose prevention and a future over punishment.

Kim advised those suffering from malicious comments directed at themselves and their families that silence is not always the best answer. She emphasized that if the mental burden becomes unbearable, one should preserve evidence and take necessary legal steps to protect their rights. Her case serves as a real-world example of the collision between freedom of expression and the protection of individual personality rights in online spaces.