The National Forensic Service and the Ongoing Audio Investigation
The National Forensic Service has officially informed investigators that it is unable to confirm whether a controversial audio recording was altered using artificial intelligence. The recording, which surfaced online and triggered public debate, is alleged to contain a conversation involving actor Kim Soo Hyun and the late actress Kim Sae Ron. Due to technical limitations, forensic experts stated that they could not conclusively determine if the audio was manipulated or artificially generated.
This development has added complexity to an already sensitive case. While the forensic findings did not validate the recording, they also did not dismiss it outright. Authorities have clarified that the investigation remains active and that further analysis is underway to reach a final conclusion.
The National Forensic Service Explains Technical Limitations in AI Detection
According to officials familiar with the process, the National Forensic Service conducted a detailed technical review of the audio file. However, current forensic tools were not sufficient to decisively identify advanced AI-based manipulation. Investigators noted that as artificial intelligence technology evolves, detecting subtle alterations in audio recordings has become increasingly difficult.
The forensic agency emphasized that an inconclusive result does not imply authenticity or fabrication. It simply reflects the present limitations of available technology. Law enforcement officials acknowledged that AI-generated content poses growing challenges for digital forensics, particularly in cases involving voice replication and sound reconstruction.
This statement has drawn public attention to the broader issue of how emerging technologies can complicate legal investigations, especially when reputations and legal responsibilities are involved.
The National Forensic Service Findings and Legal Response
Following the forensic update, Kim Soo Hyun’s legal team reiterated their position that the recording is fabricated using artificial intelligence. They have formally filed a defamation lawsuit against the YouTube channel that first released the audio. The legal complaint argues that the content caused serious reputational harm and spread unverified claims during an ongoing investigation.
The legal team has maintained that without definitive forensic confirmation, the circulation of such material is irresponsible. They also stressed that conclusions should only be drawn after all evidence is reviewed by authorities.
Police have confirmed that alongside the forensic audio review, they are examining digital devices seized during the investigation. These devices are expected to provide additional context and may help establish timelines, communication records, or inconsistencies related to the audio clip.
The National Forensic Service Case Highlights Wider Digital Evidence Challenges
The situation has sparked renewed discussion about the role of digital evidence in high-profile cases. Experts note that AI-generated media has blurred the line between real and fabricated content, making investigations more complex than ever before. The National Forensic Service has reportedly been working to update its analytical methods, but officials admit that technology often advances faster than regulatory and forensic frameworks.
Authorities stated that a final determination will be made only after completing the examination of all seized devices and related data. Until then, police have urged the public to avoid speculation and wait for verified findings.
View this post on Instagram
Public interest remains high, but officials continue to emphasize that legal processes must rely on evidence rather than online narratives. The case remains under close observation as investigators move toward a formal conclusion. Also Read: Kim Go Eun revealed her genuine love for Explosive Kiss and its emotional pull
Conclusion
The National Forensic Service report has not delivered clear answers, but it has underscored the growing difficulty of handling digital evidence in the age of artificial intelligence. With investigations still ongoing, authorities are expected to present a final assessment after reviewing all available data. Until then, the case remains unresolved, highlighting the need for caution, accuracy, and patience in matters involving emerging technology and serious allegations.
