Criminal punishment unlikely for Cha Ye-ryun school violence allegations

Attorney Kim Su-yeol stated on the 11th that criminal liability for the school violence allegations against actress Cha Ye-ryun is practically difficult because the statutes of limitations for assault and injury, which are 5 and 7 years respectively, have already expired.

As the school violence allegations surrounding actress Cha Ye-ryun escalate into a dispute over the truth, a legal expert has analyzed the legal issues of the case. The analysis covered the possibility of "specificity" being recognized even if a real name is not mentioned in an exposé, the legal meaning of temporary measures taken against online posts, and the feasibility of criminal punishment for incidents occurring 25 years ago. However, the expert also cautioned against hasty criticism or conclusions, noting that there is insufficient objective data to determine the truth of the current allegations.

On the 11th, a video titled "Summary of Cha Ye-ryun's School Violence Controversy: Can Legal Responsibility Be Imposed?" was released on the YouTube channel New Lawyers. Appearing in the video, attorney Kim Su-yeol explained the legal issues based on the allegations spreading online, emphasizing that the more public interest a matter receives, the more important it is to distinguish between factual circumstances and legal judgments.

First, Kim addressed the issue of specificity in the exposé. He explained that even if a person's real name does not appear directly in a post, specificity may be legally recognized if the clues and circumstances provided allow people in the vicinity to identify the individual. "Even if a real name is not mentioned, specificity is recognized if certain people can identify the person. One must look at whether there are clues that allow someone to be inferred," Kim said, suggesting that one cannot be free from legal responsibility simply because a name was not explicitly stated.

Kim also clarified potential misunderstandings regarding the temporary measures taken against the exposé. He explained that the fact that access to a post was temporarily restricted does not prove the content of the exposé is false. "The fact that it was subject to temporary measures does not mean it has been proven false. It is a temporary restriction of access due to expected disputes between the parties regarding the infringement of rights," Kim stated, noting that temporary measures are a procedure separate from a judicial determination of truth.

The analysis regarding the possibility of criminal punishment drew significant attention. Kim's view is that even if the incident claimed by the whistleblower actually occurred, it is practically difficult to hold anyone criminally liable since 25 years have passed. "If the whistleblower seeks responsibility for school violence suffered 25 years ago, it is difficult because it happened too long ago. The statutes of limitations for assault and injury are 5 years and 7 years, respectively, and have already expired," he explained. He also noted that the possibility of the accused being under the age of 14 at the time of the incident is a factor to consider when determining legal responsibility.

"Even if it actually happened, criminal punishment is practically difficult," Kim added. However, he noted that the low possibility of criminal punishment does not imply a judgment on the truth of the incident or the moral responsibility of the parties involved. Because the legal issue of expired statutes of limitations and the social verification of past victim claims are separate matters, the controversy is difficult to conclude simply through legal procedures.

Advice was also given that securing specific and objective data is crucial for uncovering the truth. "The best way is to find statements from classmates, diaries from the time of the bullying, records of complaints made to others, or medical records," Kim said. He suggested that as more time passes, there are limits to verifying facts through only the memories and statements of the parties involved, making records and testimonies from those around them vital. He concluded with a plea: "We do not know what the truth is. One should not criticize hastily. The arrows should not be aimed even at the family."

The controversy began when a post titled "Please stop acting, school violence perpetrator actress born in '85" was uploaded to an online community at the end of last month. The author, identified as Person A, claimed to have suffered habitual bullying and assault from a female actress during middle school. Although the real name was not directly written, Cha Ye-ryun was identified as the subject of the allegations as clues such as the birth year and school of origin spread online. However, these allegations are based on the whistleblower's claims and online inferences, and the facts have not been confirmed to date.

As the controversy spread, the YouTube channel Cha Jang-geum Cha Ye-ryeon, operated by Cha Ye-ryun, switched some videos and comment sections to private. As of the 12th, a video of a family pictorial shoot released this past September is also private. Amid the ongoing debate online, changes have appeared in the management of the subject's personal channel.

The agency, HB Entertainment, is denying the allegations entirely. The agency previously stated the claims were "groundless" and emphasized, "We will thoroughly secure relevant data regarding the distribution of malicious false information and personal attacks and respond responsibly after legal review." As the whistleblower's claims and the agency's rebuttal clash, the gap between the two sides remains unbridged.

This matter reveals both the need for social verification of past school violence claims and the defamation issues that online exposés can cause. While past incidents should not be treated lightly, one must also be wary of concluding that a specific person is a perpetrator based solely on unverified allegations. Ultimately, the core issue is objective facts and evidence that can support the situation, rather than emotional disputes or speculation. Attention is now focused on the direction of the legal battle following the firm response from Cha Ye-ryun's side, and whether additional data will be presented to confirm the reality of the exposé.

Read the original (Korean)