[This is a user-posted article and is only the opinion of the user.]

The sentencing hearing of Seungri’s appeal proceeding was held early this year on January 27, in which resulted in his three year prison sentence being commuted to one year and six months in prison. 

More importantly, recently an article was published by a South Korea's media agency, Hankook Kyungje on January 30, with the heading being, “Will the sentence be reduced if I write an apology letter?” 

Regarding the misleading heading of this article, apparently there is no apology letter mentioned in any sort of news reports related to Seungri’s case so far. 

However the article above tend to focus on “sexual crimes” that is related to a "apology letter” and “victims” issues. The article even mentioned a figure (Cho Joo-bin who is involved in the N-room case) who is a part of another case who is not even related to Seungri’s case. 

Why does that article mention a person who is not involved with Seungri’s case? What’s the actual motive?

Furthermore, the article also shared some opinions from a few authorities and professionals. Related to the first issue which is “Will the sentence be reduced if I write an apology letter?”, a judge who has been in charge for criminal trials at Seoul Central District Court said, "Personally, I don't care if you send a lot of letters", and "Actually there are defendants who commit secondary abuse, such as blaming the victim in sexual crime trial. 'True self-reflection' is added as a sentencing factor to distinguish between them and the defendants who admitted to the charges".

Another opinion was mentioned related to the second issue which was “Is/Are Victims left out?”, office worker Mr. Cho (who is known only by his surname Cho) conveyed, "It's questionable whether the perpetrator who writes the reflection sentences really 'reflects' that s/he will never commit a crime again", and

"Also, it seems that the judge(s) alienated the victim(s) from the trial to reduce the sentence only with the letters written down by the perpetrator(s)".

In Seungri’s case, Song Jae-hyung who is a Ph.D holder at the Korea Institute of Criminal Affairs and Policy pointed out, "A true reflection after a crime is something that anyone can do", and "It's a judgment that does not fit the public's eye level to reduce half of the sentence due to the element of reflection, which is only one of the sentencing factors". He also stressed out, "The most central victim's voice is missing".

Also regarding the issues mentioned above, a bill that was proposed to require judges to listen to the statements of victims' opinions when considering sentencing, is also mentioned. Song Ki-heon, a South Korea's National Assembly member from the Democratic of Korea Party who proposed the bill, explained, "The victim has no second choice but to cry twice due to the convenient and perpetrator-centered sentencing conditions", and "We need to wipe away the victim's tears by establishing sentencing standards from the perspective of victim protection".

Now based on a few news reports regarding Seungri’s first trial, some reporters decided to label a few of the witnesses who testified in the courtroom, as “victims”. 

In particular, those witnesses spoke up in their testimonies that Seungri did not have sufficient knowledge regarding the situation and they do not want him to be punished. 

Related to the charge of him using prostitution services for himself, a former prostitute herself agreed that Seungri did not know that she was a prostitute during the moment when she provided the sexual service to him, as per her claim. When Seungri side's lawyer asked the woman who was the prostitute in question about the possibility that Seungri might not have known that she was a prostitute, she answered, "I think that's even possible". Besides that, there was no coercion that happened towards the former prostitute in question.

Related to the charge of him inciting aggravated assault, 2 male "victims", Mr. A and Mr. B testified in the courtroom. One of the male "victims" who testified said that he does not want Seungri to be punished while the other testified saying he himself did not know any connection between the assault and Seungri, and also he just simply thought that the incident just happened accidentally. And this charge was not caused by any formal complaint raised by both "victims".

Mr. A testified, , "I didn't feel assaulted or threatened", and "I don't want to punish Seungri''. He furtherly revealed, "It was true that the incident went wrong and there was personal damage, but it wasn't because of Seungri", and "I don't want to punish Seungri, and I even said such that to investigative agencies". 

Meanwhile, Mr. B testified that he did not know at all about the relationship of Seungri with the incident, even until when he was questioned by Police in February 2020. Mr. B said, "I didn't know who was in the room. I was wondering how important the person was when the police asked, 'Do you know who's inside?', while he also revealed, "It is an incident that I've been living as I think to a level (as the incident was) a happening (accidentally happened at the) drinking party and I forgot it in 5 years."

To note also, the statement of the male victim, Mr. A, “I don’t want Seungri to be punished” was one of the criteria that was considered by the judge(s) of Seungri's first trial in deciding the ruling. The Court ruled in August last year, "We will render a judgment in which the aspect where the victim (related to) the inciting aggravated assault charge didn't wish for punishment." This shows that the National Assembly member Song's opinion was applied by the judge, who listened to the statement of the "victim" when considering the first trial sentencing.

Related to all those paragraphs above, why did the reporters label the witnesses as “victims” even when going through Seungri’s case, in fact there was no such sexually-related victim? And also, who is the "most central victim" as pointed out by Dr. Song in Seungri's case actually? And why do we have to satisfy the public instead of focusing on real truth and justice? In reality, those are most mentioned phrases or questions yet there are no concrete answers for them.

In conclusion, the Hankook Kyungje article's motive clearly was to act as an agenda to twist and manipulate the real facts of Seungri's case. 

Twisting the facts of the case make it seems as a "serious sexual crime", while truthfully in fact, most of Seungri’s charges are considered minor or not serious in nature.