I'm thinking let the COURTS figure it out, and refrain from jumping to conclusions. How's that?

First, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the people who will be rending a verdict in a criminal case-the jury or the judge. It's shorthand for the concept that the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The concept has NOTHING to do with my personal feelings about whether certain conditions lead me to believe whether someone is innocent or guilty. If I saw a video of him raping her, are you suggesting I would have to wait for a court decision before I could believe that he was guilty? Ridiculous. Second, what motive does this woman have to claim he raped her? Is it high status in Korea for a woman to say that she was raped by a celebrity? No. Did she contact him and say she was going to file charges unless he gave her money? No. So what does she get out of it, if she wasn't raped? It doesn't make sense, and when something doesn't make sense, it's usually not true (that she made up the rape). Third, why is rape the only time people attack the victim by saying it's a "he says, she says" situation? If Ms A alleges that Mr B threatened her with a knife and took all the money in her wallet, do we call it "he says, she says"?