1. In South Korea, justice has vanished from the law,
and court rulings that ignore public sentiment and defy common sense are repeatedly handed down.
There are several reasons why it is difficult for victims in Korea.

First : It's hard to find police officers who actually side with the victim and do their job. Clearly, many police officers especially do not want to work.
(Cases where assault victims die because the police fail to take any action even after a report has been filed are frequently reported in the news.)



Video Summary
A woman reported dating violence nine times, but no action was taken by the authorities.
Eventually, she died as a result of the assault. Following the incident, the police chief issued an official apology.



Video Summary
When the mother of a victim tried to approach the serial killer who had murdered 20 people, the police kicked her away.
This reflects the fundamental attitude of South Korea toward perpetrators and victims.
You think this couldn't possibly happen?
South Korea is a country that protects the rights of perpetrators while throwing the rights of victims to the dogs.


Second : Even if the perpetrator somehow gets prosecuted and the case goes to trial, the legal sentencing guidelines are shockingly lenient.
Do you know about the Terra and Luna collapse?
It caused losses of around 60 trillion won (approximately $40 billion) to investors, while Do-hyung Kwon liquidated 380 billion won ($250 million) just one day before the crash.
He wanted to be tried in South Korea rather than the United States because in Korea, even a suspended sentence is possible.
Unfortunately, South Korea does not fully confiscate the profits obtained through fraud or embezzlement.
As a result, some Koreans dream of embezzling huge amounts of money, serving just 2 to 3 years in prison, and then living lavishly afterward.
The laws and judges are enabling this.


Third : Victims have to face a judiciary that seems more empathetic toward offenders than victims.
Even when victims plead for harsh punishment and refuse to forgive, these judges, as if it's their life's mission,
grant forgiveness on behalf of the victim and hand down the lightest possible sentence allowed by law always backed by some excuse.
Honestly, the South Korean justice system just leaves you sighing in despair.

A man, after drinking alcohol, drove with his companions in the car.
While driving, he ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle, killing the other driver.
The perpetrator showed no remorse and said something along the lines of,
The perpetrator said, "I'll probably just get a light sentence anyway," and chose to face legal punishment without offering any compensation to the victim.
The court ruled that the passengers bore no responsibility and sentenced only the driver to 1 year and 8 months in prison.

What makes this ruling so outrageous is that,
First : The passenger should have been punished for aiding and abetting drunk driving.
Second : The point is that such a light sentence was handed down even though the perpetrator had provided no compensation to the bereaved family,
and the judge had confirmed that he had no intention of doing so.
In South Korea, rulings like this are not rare anomalies. They happen regularly.
Whenever such cases make the news, people leave comments like:
"Would you rule the same way if the victim were your own family?"
And yet, these absurd, disgraceful verdicts keep coming without change.
And behind this absurd and shameful ruling lies Korea's deeply rotten and long standing practice of giving special privileges to lawyers who are former judges or prosecutors.



Video Summary
A bus driver was fired by the bus company for allegedly embezzling 800 won (about $0.60).
The driver filed a lawsuit, claiming the dismissal was unfair.
However, the presiding judge ruled that the dismissal was justified.
Interestingly, in other cases overseen by the same judge, the rulings were quite different:
A university professor who embezzled 270 million won (about $200,000) from a research fund was reinstated.
An intelligence agency employee who accepted 1.62 million won (about $1,200) in entertainment was also reinstated.

In South Korea, it has long been customary for judges to impose harsh penalties on the poor, while treating the wealthy with leniency.
There is even a saying in Korea: "If you have money, you're innocent; if you don't, you're guilty."
To be honest, when I read the news, it's extremely rare that I think a court ruling was fair — at most, maybe once or twice a year, if that.
South Korea is by no means a truly advanced country. Its judicial system is far too corrupt and dysfunctional to be called that.
Can't believe it? It's 100% true.


It’s not just the judges of the past today’s Korean judges are still painfully, spectacularly incompetent, and a recent ruling in Korea proves it yet again.
This one was filed by Louis Vuitton, with Kim & Chang doing the lawyering, and the argument is basically: “If a customer asks a repair shop to customize or modify a Louis Vuitton item, the repair shop should be banned from doing it.”
And because Korea loves a good judicial circus—the plaintiff won in both the first and second instance.
You don’t need to “think hard” to understand how brain-dead this is.
Louis Vuitton doesn’t get to bark orders at an independent repair shop over what that shop can do for a customer who already owns the product.
That’s not how reality works, and it sure as hell shouldn’t be how law works.
Now, if the repair shop was buying LV items, chopping them up, “reforming” them, and flipping them for profit—fine.
That’s a different story. But here the customer brings in their own item and asks for a modification.
In what universe does Louis Vuitton have the standing to say, “No, you can’t provide that service”?
If Louis Vuitton wants to be controlling, they can try imposing restrictions on their own customers the people who bought the product like “we’ll refuse after-sales service if you alter it,” or whatever.
But going after third-party repair shops is just corporate overreach dressed up as righteousness.
And the truly embarrassing part is that the judges actually bought it.
They swallowed it whole and called it “trademark infringement.” Trademark infringement—seriously?
That’s the kind of lazy, checkbox reasoning you get when people in robes mistake brand worship for legal analysis.
Outside Korea, the basic concept is simple: once a consumer buys a legitimate product, the trademark owner’s control over that particular item is exhausted. It’s the buyer’s property.
They can use it, repair it, modify it—whatever. That’s what “ownership” means.
At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if Korea soon produces a ruling that says even when you’re stopped at a red light and get rear-ended while sitting still, the car in front is somehow at fault.


As of 2014, in South Korea there have been only 14 Supreme Court cases since the Criminal Act was enacted in 1953 in which self-defense was recognized.
In other words, self-defense is acknowledged only about once every four to five years.
And this is where the cluelessness of Korean judges really shows.
A is holding a knife and charges at B.
In South Korea, in a situation like this, the idea is that unless you just get stabbed to death, you’ll end up going to prison.
Let me explain in more detail.
A charges at B with a knife, and B avoids the blade and punches A in the face, knocking A down.
If B then hits A again to make sure A can’t get back up and attack with the knife, Korean judges don’t see that as self-defense—they treat it as assault.
Sounds unbelievable?
There have actually been cases where a burglar broke into someone’s home with a weapon, was knocked down with one strike, and then the homeowner was found guilty of assault because they struck the intruder one more time.
So there’s one question I can’t help asking here:
What if A regains consciousness and starts swinging the knife again?
And then Korean judges say this: “That’s none of our business.”
That’s what Korean judges are like.


2. South Korea is a crazy country where about 40% of the population votes for candidates from conservative parties that support martial law.
This means that 40% of the Korean population lacks basic judgment.
And most of them are either from a specific region or belong to a certain age group.
The declaration of martial law is essentially a declaration of war against the people.
In other words, supporting martial law means supporting the killing of not only myself but also my parents and siblings.
What do you think? Do they seem sane to you?

If Yi Wan-yong, who sold out the country, came back to life and ran for office as a candidate from a conservative party that supports martial law, they would vote for him.
They don't look at the person. They vote only based on the party.

South Korea is falling apart because of thoughtless conservatives.