“Famous school bully, instigator of school violence” shocking revelation… “Single Inferno 4” Guk Dong-ho opens up [Star Issue]

*This content was translated by AI.View Original

Guk Dong-ho, a participant in the Netflix reality show "Single's Inferno 4," has once again spoken directly regarding allegations of school violence.

On the 5th, Guk Dong-ho released a lengthy statement to clarify the suspicions surrounding his alleged involvement in school violence.

Guk Dong-ho stated, "I have never dated Person B, nor did I maintain close contact or associate with them as part of the same group. We attended different middle schools, and I was not in a position where I could know Person B's thoughts, actions, or social connections to the extent that I could act on them, as the accuser claims." He added, "The claim that I instigated someone to bully another person by using Person B, or that I allowed such bullying to occur despite knowing about it, is difficult to establish from its very premise. It is objectively hard to accept the explanation that I directed or permitted school violence through a person with whom I had no dating history and no close interactions."

He continued, "The claim regarding a 'cake confession attack' is also entirely unrelated to me. I do not even know in what context, when, where, or by whom this incident allegedly occurred." He emphasized, "It is not true that I prepared a cake to participate in someone's bullying, or that I performed actions in the form of a confession tailored to a specific situation."

Guk Dong-ho noted, "Moreover, while the accuser initially made various claims based on the premise of my relationship with Person B, after I explained that aspect, they displayed an attitude suggesting they accepted that this premise was inaccurate." He stated, "The accuser posted a correction stating that Person B and I were not in a romantic relationship, but deleted the post when faced with criticism. Although the post has been deleted, it is likely that the accuser still holds the view, as previously expressed, that whether Person B and I dated or not is irrelevant to them."

He further said, "Additionally, the accuser has subsequently publicly requested tips regarding me and continues to share anonymous tip content. However, the existence of an anonymous tip and the truthfulness of its content are entirely different matters." He stated, "What matters is not the mere existence of a tip, but how specific and consistent the content is, whether it is supported by objective materials or circumstances, and whether sufficient fact-checking procedures were conducted before publication. I believe that publishing unverified information as if it were fact must stop."

Previously, Attorney A, currently in practice, raised suspicions of Guk Dong-ho being a perpetrator of school violence. Attorney A claimed, "Do you know that your girlfriend (Person B) had other students hit my head with a badminton racket, place thumbtacks on my chair while I was using the bathroom during break time, and apply strong glue to my locker lock so I couldn't open it? Do you know that you, who were a famous school bully, also found this amusing despite knowing about it?"

As the controversy grew, Guk Dong-ho denied the allegations, calling them "false facts." He stated, "I have never dated Person B. I am even in doubt whether such a person exists. The content currently being unilaterally claimed by a specific individual is not based on any facts whatsoever, and I clearly state that I have no connection to these incidents."

He added, "If there are parts where I actually did wrong, I will not avoid them and will apologize. However, I cannot admit to or apologize for things I did not do. I also cannot accept my reputation and life being damaged by content that is not true," reiterating his rebuttal to the suspicions.

Subsequently, his agency Mood released a statement from their legal representative, Law Firm Phil, announcing, "We have filed criminal complaints for violations of the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation) due to the spread of false facts, and attempted coercion."

Hello. This is Guk Dong-ho.

I am providing an additional statement regarding the recent suspicions of school violence surrounding me.

First, I never take lightly the pain of those who report being victims of school violence. If someone has been hurt by past events, I believe their feelings deserve respect.

However, for claims of victimization to be publicly determined as facts of harm against a specific individual, appropriate fact-checking and verification must necessarily precede such determinations. This is especially true when an individual uses the title of attorney to make influential statements on social media through a real-name account.

Many people may accept that "if an attorney who knows the law well mentions their real name, it must be true." Therefore, I believe that when making public claims under the title of attorney that can have significant impacts on others, stricter and more careful fact-checking must be conducted prior to those claims.

The core issue I am raising is not simply "whether there were reports of school violence victims." The problem is whether the claims specifically targeting me align with the facts, and whether those claims have undergone sufficient verification.

Initially, the accuser claimed that Person B was my girlfriend and that I knew about the bullying Person B inflicted on the accuser through this relationship, yet allowed or mocked it.

Specifically, the accuser's claims are as follows:

Person B, who attended a different school than the accuser, instigated other students at the accuser's school to commit acts of bullying such as placing thumbtacks on chairs, gluing locker doors shut, and hitting heads with badminton rackets.

I was Person B's boyfriend, knew about all the above situations, and found these actions amusing or effectively allowed them to occur.

I performed so-called "confession attacks" in front of Person B toward the accuser, causing humiliation.

However, this is not true.

Person B and I have never dated. Furthermore, we did not maintain close contact or associate as part of the same group. We attended different middle schools, and I was not in a relationship where I could know Person B's thoughts, actions, or social connections to the extent that I could act on them, as the accuser claims.

Therefore, the claim that I instigated someone to bully another person by using Person B, or that I allowed such bullying despite knowing about it, is difficult to establish from its very premise. It is objectively hard to accept the explanation that I directed or permitted school violence through a person with whom I had no dating history and no close interactions.

The claim regarding so-called "cake confession attacks" is also entirely unrelated to me. I do not even know in what context, when, where, or by whom this incident allegedly occurred. It is not true that I prepared a cake to participate in someone's bullying, or that I performed actions in the form of a confession tailored to a specific situation, as the accuser claims.

Moreover, while the accuser initially made various claims based on the premise of my relationship with Person B, after I explained that aspect, they displayed an attitude suggesting they accepted that this premise was inaccurate.

In fact, the accuser posted a correction stating that Person B and I were not in a romantic relationship, but deleted the post when faced with criticism. Although the post has been deleted, it is likely that the accuser still holds the view, as previously expressed, that whether Person B and I dated or not is irrelevant to them.

However, I believe this part is very important.

Most people who encountered the accuser's exposé would have understood that I intentionally performed a "confession attack" in front of Person B, with whom I was actually in a romantic relationship, to mock the accuser, and that this led to subsequent bullying.

However, if my relationship with Person B is different from what was claimed, shouldn't the core premise of the entire incident be re-examined? Furthermore, if this connection is not true, it is also hard to accept why Person B would instigate school violence by students at a different school to bully the accuser in the first place.

Additionally, the accuser has subsequently publicly requested tips regarding me and continues to share anonymous tip content. However, the existence of an anonymous tip and the truthfulness of its content are entirely different matters. What matters is not the mere existence of a tip, but how specific and consistent the content is, whether it is supported by objective materials or circumstances, and whether sufficient fact-checking procedures were conducted before publication.

Looking at the claims disclosed so far, the core premise has changed or remains unclear, and there is a lack of specific explanation regarding direct actions involving me. Even the name of the person designated as the main perpetrator has been mentioned differently on multiple occasions.

I believe that in this process, not only I but also Person B are suffering significant harm. Despite having no dating history with me and not being close associates, Person B is suddenly being referred to as my girlfriend and someone who was part of a so-called "bully group."

Since this incident occurred, I am not seeking or attempting to contact Person B separately to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. If communication becomes necessary in the future, I believe it would be appropriate to proceed through our respective legal representatives.

I believe that publishing unverified information as if it were fact must stop.

I state this clearly.

If there are parts where I actually did wrong, I will not avoid them and will apologize. However, I cannot admit to or apologize for things I did not do. I also cannot accept my reputation and life being damaged by content that is not true.

I respectfully request the following from the accuser:

First, please reveal the basis for the claim that I dated or had close interactions with Person B. Second, please reveal specific evidence supporting the claim that I instigated or permitted school violence through Person B. Third, please specifically explain when, where, and what actions I allegedly performed in the so-called "cake confession attack" incident. Fourth, please clarify how fact-checking was conducted before publishing anonymous tips. Fifth, if there were significant misunderstandings or errors in previous claims, please publicly explain this point now.

I am not trying to deny the feelings of those who report being victims. I am simply stating that if claims specifically designate me as a perpetrator, minimal factual relationships and responsible verification commensurate with such claims are necessary.

Please stop treating tips as facts and publishing them without filter, even now. No one's life should be destroyed by unverified claims.

This incident is a very large event that I never anticipated in my life. It has become difficult to endure the situation where I am publicly designated as a perpetrator for things I did not do, and where such content spreads without sufficient fact-checking and verification.

Currently, content contrary to the facts is being repeatedly spread, and very serious harm has already occurred in this process. Accordingly, I have determined that I have no choice but to proceed with legal measures to protect my reputation.

I will provide additional statements as needed regarding procedures that will be carried out in the future.

I state this once again. I cannot admit to things I did not do. And I believe that no one's life should be damaged by claims raised without fact-checking.

Finally, if anyone felt discomfort regarding the part of my previous statement where I mentioned that there might be promotional intent in the accuser's exposé process, I sincerely apologize for that point.

However, at the time, I was experiencing great confusion and shock under the situation where the accuser publicly determined me to be a school violence perpetrator alongside the message "I only represent victims," and attacked me by quoting lines from a school violence drama. If you also consider the possibility that the content claimed by the accuser may contain significant factual errors or essential distortions, I hope you would also look at what the post initially made by the accuser meant to me.

Without my consent, I was publicly posted in online spaces as if I were an extreme perpetrator appearing in a school violence drama. The accuser quoted lines from a victim in a drama themed around school violence to publicly designate and criticize me.

Along with the phrase "I only represent victims," the accuser posted a statement asserting that I am a school violence perpetrator, as the representative attorney of a law firm specializing in victim representation. They also emphasized their expertise in representing victims and concluded the post with expressions they usually use; this post currently records over 550,000 views. From that point on, I felt that I had effectively been stigmatized as a school violence perpetrator in front of the public.

Although I wrote down the confusion and doubts I felt in a state of disarray, from now on, I will speak more carefully regarding matters not directly related to the essence of the incident.

Thank you for reading this long post.

I am also trying to respond calmly according to factual relationships and procedures, rather than responding emotionally. I will speak again about necessary parts as procedures progress in the future.

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

*This content was translated by AI.View Original