Prosecution Service, 'Kim Soo-hyun's Brother' Director Lee Ro-be (Lee Sa-rang) Named as Witness in Kim Se-dae's Trial [Star News On-Site]

*This content was translated by AI.View Original

The Prosecution Service mentioned the application to call Director Lee Ro-be (Lee Sa-rang), known as a relative of actor Kim Soo-hyun, as a witness during the second pretrial hearing for Kim Se-dae, representative of the research institute Garoseuro Research Institute (Gaseoyeon), who was indicted on charges of disseminating false information regarding Kim Soo-hyun.

The Criminal Division 26 of the Seoul Central District Court held the second pretrial hearing on the 15th for Kim Se-ui (CEO)'s charges including violation of the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation). On this day, Kim Se-dae appeared in court wearing a prison uniform.

Kim Se-dae's defense counsel discussed evidence-related matters with the court, and the Prosecution Service mentioned an application to amend the indictment. In response, Kim Se-dae's side stated regarding the amended facts of the prosecution: "We do not agree overall. It is in accordance with the defendant's request, and we will submit specific details in writing."

Additionally, the Prosecution Service announced plans to apply for witness testimony from five individuals. Among these, the application to call Lee Ro-be, Kim Soo-hyun's older brother, as a witness was mentioned, stating, "This pertains to the defamation of the late Kim Sae-ron's bereaved family, and he is also in the position of representative of the victim's company (Gold Medalist)." They also stated they would consider applications for witnesses such as Attorney Buh Ji-seok and Kwon Young-chan.

Previously, the court held the first pretrial hearing for Kim Se-ui (CEO) in September. Initially, this case was assigned to Criminal Division 14, a single-judge panel, but it was reassigned to Criminal Division 26, a three-judge panel, following a decision on collegiate bench composition. Collegiate bench composition is a procedure that changes a case heard by a single judge to one heard by a panel of three judges, taking into account the nature of the case.

At that time, Kim Se-dae's defense counsel stated, "Our desire for a jury trial remains unchanged," maintaining their position on applying for a jury trial. However, the court decided not to accept this after concluding the pretrial hearing.

Kim Soo-hyun's defense counsel addressed the court: "Looking at what (Kim Se-dae) said through broadcasts regarding why the defendant's side desires a jury trial, he states that 'we must fight against massive left-wing power, so a jury trial is necessary.' The defendant continues to make such claims even while in custody. We hope you will examine whether this aligns with the spirit of a jury trial."

They continued: "The reason the substantive truth of this case was not initially discovered and the public did not listen to the victim's (Kim Soo-hyun) rebuttal stems from a social atmosphere where criticizing the deceased or their bereaved family is not permitted. We are concerned whether the defendant's side is trying to bring the distorted atmosphere from the early stages of the case back into the trial, or whether they are attempting to use it politically."

The two sides also clashed over the facts of the prosecution. Kim Se-dae's side argued: "Regarding the defamation portion, the specified facts are not false. The deceased (late Kim Sae-ron) dated the victim since her minor years. There exist notes written by the victim before his military enlistment, KakaoTalk messages, and photos and videos taken at the victim's home. The National Forensic Service merely replied that it was difficult to make a determination regarding deepfake voice with only the provided materials."

Furthermore, Kim Se-dae's side claimed that they had verified the truthfulness of the materials presented by Kim Se-dae on his YouTube broadcast with the bereaved family, stating, "The deceased's mother said she was certain that the voice in the recording file belonged to her daughter."

Regarding the disclosure of photos showing part of Kim Soo-hyun's body exposed on a YouTube broadcast, Kim Se-dae's side countered: "This does not qualify as filming material that could cause sexual humiliation. It is an everyday photo taken by the deceased at her residence. It is not a photo targeting specific body parts."

Previously, the Women and Children Crimes Investigation Division 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecution Service indicted Kim Se-dae in custody on charges including violation of the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation), violation of the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes (distribution of filming material using cameras, etc.), and violation of the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes.

Kim Se-dae was suspected of disseminating false information through YouTube live broadcasts, press conferences, etc., from March to May 2025, claiming that late Kim Sae-ron dated Kim Soo-hyun for about six years since her minor years and that pressure from Kim Soo-hyun's side to repay debts was the cause of the deceased's death. He is also suspected of defaming Kim Soo-hyun by manipulating the deceased's voice using AI and fabricating false facts suggesting she had been dating Kim Soo-hyun since middle school.

The police and Prosecution Service, which investigated the case, stated in the indictment that Kim Se-dae transmitted false information 25 times with the intent to slander Kim Soo-hyun. This also included charges of disclosing photos showing Kim Soo-hyun's body exposed and mentioning the possibility of disclosing additional photos to force Kim Soo-hyun's side to acknowledge the relationship with the deceased and issue a public apology.

Meanwhile, the Crime Proceeds Recovery Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecution Service completed the registration for preservation of forfeiture regarding land owned by Kim Se-dae.

Preservation of forfeiture is a measure to temporarily freeze proceeds obtained through illegal acts before the finalization of a judgment to prevent the suspect from hiding or disposing of them. The amount is known to be 169.4 million won in total. The Prosecution Service determined that Kim Se-dae earned at least 54.4 million won from donations and at least 115 million won from advertising. The Prosecution Service explained, "During the police investigation, preservation of forfeiture was applied only to about 5 million won in criminal proceeds, but the Crime Proceeds Recovery Division conducted tracking of all donation accounts of the company operated by Kim Se-dae, key witness investigations of company officials, and property inquiries."

Subsequently, the Seoul Central District Court decided to initiate auction proceedings for real estate under Kim Se-ui (CEO)'s name. The received item is one unit in a Hyundai Apartment in Apgujeong-dong, Gangnam-gu. This procedure began with an application by Attorney Kim So-yeon, who claimed, "I have not received over 120 million won, including attorney fees, from Kim Se-ui (CEO)."

Attorney Kim So-yeon had previously applied for compulsory execution based on a payment order from the Daejeon District Court. However, the registry lists prior-ranking claims, including a total bank mortgage of over 3.6 billion won, a provisional attachment of 2 billion won on Kim Se-dae's share set by Gold Medalist, Kim Soo-hyun's agency, and a national tax delinquency seizure of approximately 2.3 billion won by the Gangnam Tax Office, with the total amount of claims reaching about 8.07 billion won.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.View Original