Actor Lee Sun Gyun and K-pop artist G-Dragon have recently been booked by Incheon Metropolitan Police on suspicion of illegal drug use.
In response to these allegations, G-Dragon issued a firm denial through his legal counsel, stating that he has not used drugs and emphasizing that the news reports concerning the violation of drug control laws are unrelated to him.
He also announced his intention to voluntarily participate in questioning to assist with the investigation process.
G-Dragon‘s legal team has confirmed that he will appear on November 6 to actively assist in a thorough and impartial investigation.
It has been clarified that his case is separate from Lee Sun Gyun’s ongoing drug incident involving the ‘VIP Room Salon’ and entertainment establishment manager A.
Authorities have also specified that G-Dragon was not among the eight individuals previously investigated in connection with the Gangnam venue frequently visited by Lee Sun Gyun.
Furthermore, the Incheon Police Narcotics Investigation Unit had applied for a search warrant for G-Dragon‘s communication records based on suspicion of drug offenses under drug control laws. However, the warrant was rejected by the Incheon District Court due to insufficient evidence of a crime.
With the ongoing developments in the entertainment industry’s drug scandal, many netizens are questioning the basis for accusing G-Dragon without solid evidence.
Some Korean netizens have speculated that individuals involved in drug offenses often implicate famous or influential people to receive reduced punishment.
Despite G-Dragon‘s previous history with a marijuana case, they believe it is unlikely that statements made by an entertainment establishment employee would change anything.
They express the need to filter out the words of both a drug user and someone who frequents room salons, and suggest waiting for the investigation to conclude before forming judgments.
There are calls for accountability, stating that if it turns out G-Dragon is innocent, journalists and hate commenters should be held responsible.
Meanwhile, others advocate for patience until the end of the investigation.
Source(1)
