Gomin-Si School Violence Controversy - Between Exposé and Rebuttal, the Second Tazinyo?

The beginning of the controversy surrounding Go Min-si's school bullying.

In May 2025, allegations of school violence against actress Go Min-si were raised online, causing a significant upheaval not only in the entertainment industry but also across society. The debate over whether exposing the past serves the purpose of social justice or constitutes the abuse of private sanction is ongoing. This article aims to examine the development of the Go Min-si controversy, the counterarguments, the similarities with the past 'Ta Jin-yo' incident, and the attitudes we should adopt when confronting such events.

The past of the public figure rises to the scrutiny of the masses

Actress Go Min-si is an actor who has steadily built her career by appearing in Netflix dramas and various films. While continuing her work amid recognition for her popularity and acting skills, she suddenly found herself at the center of controversy when allegations emerged in a community claiming that she was a perpetrator of school violence during her school years. The poster, claiming to be a former classmate from the same middle school as Go Min-si, revealed that during middle school, Go Min-si extorted money and repeatedly verbally abused and mocked specific students, and did not hesitate to make derogatory comments about students with disabilities. The post included specific information such as real names, school names, and graduation photos. Consequently, this escalated beyond mere rumors to become a 'social suspicion.'

The content and spread of 'school violence revelations'

Since the initial revelation, additional accusers have emerged within anonymous communities, claiming similar experiences. In particular, testimonies have been shared alleging that specific individuals summoned external bullies or made derogatory remarks targeting students with disabilities, causing public sentiment to rapidly deteriorate. Past photos of Go Min-shi smoking and drinking during high school have resurfaced online, further amplifying doubts about their morality. This series of incidents quickly rose to the top of real-time search terms on portals, spreading as major news. Beyond simple accusations, the emotions of those claiming to be victims intersected with public sentiment, creating social pressure under the name of 'justice'.

Confronting the Crossroads of Wife and Legal Action

Go Min-si's side designated the allegations as "clear false facts" through her agency Mystic Story and announced a strong legal response. The agency stated that it is preparing civil and criminal actions by appointing a lawyer. Accordingly, Go Min-si has canceled her scheduled brand events and interview schedules, effectively halting her official activities. Simultaneously, another classmate, A, countered the accusations on social media. A mentioned that he was also mentioned as a perpetrator of school violence but expressed his frustration, stating, "I have never acted in an embarrassing way during that time." He strongly claimed, "If there is evidence, reveal it. I did not act that way." Afterward, he appeared on broadcasts and YouTube interviews to clarify his position point by point, stating that he is also considering legal action for defamation and other reasons.

The absence of evidence and public judgment

To date, there is no officially submitted evidence. There are indirect circumstances such as graduation photos, past social media records, and some posts, but direct evidence that can prove specific actions such as assault or extortion, such as videos, recordings, or testimonies, has not been publicized. Legal proceedings have also not yet intensified, leaving the situation in a state where there are only 'the claims of the accusers and the rebuttals from the defendants.' In this way, the public is placed in a situation where they must become their own 'judges of facts' amidst unorganized information. However, in a state where it is unclear who the victim is, who the perpetrator is, and what the truth is, public opinion often tends to follow a black-and-white logic. This creates a structure where judgments are made based on atmosphere rather than evidence, and the platform of the internet further accelerates this process.

The Tajinyo Incident and the Shadow of Internet Exposure

This phenomenon was similarly observed in the past case of 'Tajinyo.' In 2010, the event began with allegations surrounding Tablo's educational background, primarily raised in online communities, and is regarded as a representative case of internet mobbing. Tajinyo is short for 'We demand the truth from Tablo,' and it spread claims that Tablo had fabricated his bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford University. In response, Tablo disclosed official certificates from Stanford, letters of confirmation from his professors and department heads during his attendance, as well as his transcripts. However, Tajinyo refused to accept this evidence and continued to raise endless suspicions. Ultimately, Tablo sued key members of Tajinyo, and the court sentenced the main participants to prison time. This incident remains a symbol of 'the potential for online exposure to create real victims' and 'the dangers of public opinion that ignores evidence.' Recently, Tablo revealed on a broadcast that 'some of the participants in Tajinyo at that time were celebrities,' confessing that he still suffers from aftereffects. The Tajinyo incident vividly illustrates how easily internet exposure and collective verification can flow into irrationality.

Public Morality and Collective Presumption

Korean society tends to demand high standards for the private lives and morality of public figures. Issues such as school violence, drinking and smoking, and controversies related to sexuality are particularly difficult for the public to forgive. In this environment, it is accepted as a natural consequence that past actions significantly impact current careers. The problem is that these standards often operate through public opinion before any legal judgment is made. The principle of 'presumption of innocence' hardly functions within the entertainment industry and online communities. The public believes it has the right to scrutinize and evaluate every action of public figures, but those judgments are often not based on clear facts and are highly susceptible to emotions and prevailing sentiments.

From the perspective of a third party, how should 'truth' be handled?

The controversy surrounding Ko Min-si's alleged school violence is an event where the truth has not yet been clearly established. Both the voices of those claiming to be victims and the rebuttals from those identified as perpetrators hold validity. Legal proceedings have just begun, and direct evidence is still lacking. In this situation, what stance should we, as third parties, take? The necessity of victim-centered approaches is clear, but labeling someone a 'perpetrator' without any evidence can also become another form of violence. We have already experienced this in the Ta-jin-yo incident. Only when allegations are raised, evidence is verified, and procedural legitimacy is maintained can the truth function with justice. In an era of information overload and emotional excess, we easily become angry and easily form convictions. However, making judgments without confirming the facts can lead to another Ta-jin-yo at any time. Public figures are responsible beings with rights as individuals. The Ko Min-si and Ta-jin-yo incidents both remind us of how careful our judgments must be when assessing others.

Conclusion: The Attitude We Must Uphold

Through incidents like this, we are prompted to ask an important question: "Do we have the right to evaluate someone without sufficient information?" Reflecting on this question is surely the attitude we should maintain in future public discourse.