Lawyer offers personal view on Cha Ye-ryun school violence allegations

Attorney Jo Gi-hyeon suggested on a YouTube video released on the 5th that actress Cha Ye-ryun may have belonged to a bully group, though he noted she might not have directly bullied the whistleblower. The claims, which expanded to include power abuse allegations, follow an initial online post on the 29th of last month.

The controversy surrounding actress Cha Ye-ryun has entered a new phase as allegations of school violence have expanded to include claims of power abuse at hair salons and golf courses. While her agency has announced strong legal action, attorney Jo Gi-hyeon has drawn attention by analyzing the legal issues of the disclosures and offering a personal opinion that "there appears to be a possibility she belonged to a bully group." However, the truth of the allegations raised so far has not been confirmed.

On the 5th, a video titled "Cha Ye-ryun School Violence Controversy: Is an Exposure Always the Truth? Legal Issues Analyzed by a Lawyer" was released on the YouTube channel Daehan Jungang Law Firm TV. Appearing in the video, attorney Jo Gi-hyeon reviewed the school violence allegations surrounding Cha Ye-ryun and additional online disclosures, explaining the legal significance of anonymous exposures and the responsibility for indiscriminate slander.

The controversy began with a post on an online community on the 29th of last month. An individual, referred to as Person A, claimed to have been continuously bullied and assaulted by an actress born in 1985 during middle school. Based on the birth year and school mentioned in the post, Cha Ye-ryun was identified as the perpetrator online. However, since the whistleblower did not directly mention her real name, whether the individual can be considered specifically identified has emerged as a legal issue.

Regarding this, Jo explained, "Even if the whistleblower does not mention a real name, it can only be seen as having identified the person. Looking at the school of origin and birth year, it inevitably narrows down to Cha Ye-ryun." His point is that even if a post is anonymous, it can be subject to legal responsibility if the person can be identified by combining surrounding circumstances and information.

The controversy did not stop at school violence allegations. The impact grew as additional disclosures, such as allegations of power abuse at hair salons and golf courses involving Cha Ye-ryun, appeared online. However, Jo emphasized that such claims should not be unconditionally accepted as truth. He mentioned the possibility of fake classmates, false claims by anti-fans, or exposures intended to garner attention, stating, "In the current situation, it is impossible to know whose words are the truth."

In particular, he pointed out that legal issues can vary depending on the purpose and method of the exposure. He noted that there are cases where people attempt to destroy someone's life or prioritize financial gain due to simple jealousy, slander, or a desire for attention. This is interpreted as a warning that the truth is not automatically guaranteed just because an exposure receives social attention.

Legal warnings were also issued regarding the spread of criticism directed not only at Cha Ye-ryun herself but also at her family. Jo explained that even if the school violence is proven to be true, indiscriminate insulting posts could result in separate legal liabilities. He pointed out, "Acts such as swearing at a daughter or husband can constitute child abuse beyond mere insult." His intent was to suggest that attacks against the subject of the allegations and their family cannot be justified.

Jo also shared his personal view on the current situation surrounding Cha Ye-ryun. While premising that "there is currently no evidence, and I do not know anything beyond what has been released to the media," he noted that looking at the responses from both sides, the whistleblower has presented claims with specific facts, while Cha Ye-ryun's side has announced legal measures but does not appear to have taken specific actions such as filing a lawsuit yet. He added, "As a personal opinion, there appears to be a possibility she belonged to a bully group. However, it does not seem like she was the person who directly bullied the whistleblower." This is strictly the attorney's personal speculation and is not a confirmed fact or a legal judgment.

He advised that if Cha Ye-ryun's side deems all claims to be groundless, filing a lawsuit for defamation by stating false facts could be a swift response. He explained that if specificity and falsity are proven to ensure punishment, it could help resolve the allegations and restore her reputation. However, in actual legal proceedings, judgments may vary depending on specific circumstances such as the content and expression of the posts, the truthfulness, and the public interest.

HB Entertainment, the agency for Cha Ye-ryun, announced its policy of strong response through an official statement on the 4th. The agency stated, "We take the current situation, where unconfirmed claims and speculations raised anonymously are repeatedly spreading and criticism is being directed even at the actress's family, very seriously." They emphasized, "We will thoroughly secure relevant materials regarding the malicious spread of false information and personal attacks and respond responsibly after legal review."

As the controversy, which began with school violence allegations, has spread to various claims of power abuse and criticism of her family, online public opinion surrounding Cha Ye-ryun has become even more complex. Amidst the cycle of exposure, rebuttal, and announced legal action, the most important attitude is not to conclude unverified claims as facts. The reality of the allegations must be uncovered through objective evidence, specific responses from the parties involved, and necessary legal procedures.

Read the original (Korean)