SUITS-KOREA: EPISODE 12 (If you have blind faith about your ideals, you will be betrayed by the

reality)

1. Time Stamp: 1:11-1:25

Transcript: “Two years ago, I have committed emblements by pocketing money from our client’s
account. I hope all of you will know about the kind of person that I was. Also, I hope you would
take time to know how I have changed, after I learned to regret, to atone for my crime, and to
live as a modest person.”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
Reason: In order to get the sympathy and win the trust of the employees, Ham Ki-Taek admitted
his mistakes committed in the past and appeal to the audience that he had already suffered the
consequence of his crimes and had already changed himself for the better.

2. Time Stamp: 8:37-8:46

Transcript: “He’s a snake. He’s like a mamushi that even eats his own mother. He might shed his
skin, but his nature hasn’t changed.”
Type of fallacy: Abusive - Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Reason: To assure that Go Yeon Woo will avoid and fear the thought of being near Mr. Ham,
Choi Kang Seok described Mr. Ham as relative to a snake that is pretentious who looks kind but
is actually cunning who stabs people behind their back.

3. Time Stamp: 8:47-8:55

Transcript: “I’m the one who kicked him out of his firm. And he’s back to take revenge for what I
did.”
Type of fallacy: Circumstantial - Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Reason: Given that Mr. Choi was the reason for the termination of Mr. Ham suggests that Mr.
Ham upon redeeming himself, Mr. Ham is back to take his revenge to terminate Mr. Choi.

4. Time Stamp: 11:09-11:16

Transcript: “So you’re saying they have money to buy machines, but they don’t have any money
to hire new nurses.
Type of fallacy: Leading Question
Reason: The nurse who is the leader of the protest is directing the defendant’s attorney to
assert that the hospital is cutting the budget allotted for hiring new nurses or is in the process of
downsizing its labor force for the improvement of hospital’s machines and equipments.

5. Time Stamp: 11:24-11:28

Transcript: “A kid like you might look at the strike as a petty means to get some more money.”
Type of fallacy: Abusive - Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Reason: Mr. Go’s expertise and credibility as the defendant’s attorney was questioned as
correlated to his young age.

6. Time Stamp: 11:32-11:36

Transcript: “As I expected, you just proved that you’re no different from the other two
attorneys.”
Type of fallacy: Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)
Reason: The fact that Mr. Choi’s offer does not conform to the terms and conditions of the labor
union of nurses’ does not mean that he is just the same with the first two attorneys who
transact with the leader of the union.

7. Time Stamp: 11:46-11:52

Transcript: “Even if we stop doing our jobs, all those expensive machines will surely be able to
do all the work.”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)
Reason: Just because the defendant’s lawyer presented that the hospital allocated its budget for
the purchase of new machines instead of the recruitment of new nurses, does not mean that a
final judgment has already been made implying that the operations of the machines are better
than those of the nurses.

8. Time Stamp: 12:10-12:18

Transcript: “Would you say the same thing if the nurses forgot to give your grandmother her
medicine or was unable to offer help in an urgent situation because the sanatorium wasn’t
being managed properly?”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)/ Argumentum ad Baculum
(Appeal to Force)
Reason: Mr. Choi aims to influence Mr. Go on agreeing to claim that downsizing the number of
nurses employed in the hospital in order to improve the quality of service in the hospital by
appealing to his emotion through his grandmother who is currently admitted in the hospital.
Relatively Mr. Go was pressured to admit his grandmother to another hospital because of the
issue the Sanatorium is currently dealing with.

8. Time Stamp: 14:19-14:23

Transcript: “They’re following the legal procedures in holding a strike. There’s nothing illegal
about the strike.”
Type of fallacy: False Dilemma
Reason: It cannot be concluded that because the strike is following the procedures doesn’t
mean it is legal because there are still other factors being affected by the said activity such as
the efficiency and quality of work performance, the disturbance of the noise and others that are
presented in the drama.

9. Time Stamp: 14:29-14:45

Transcript: “As you can see from the documents I’ve handed in, the hospital may suffer from
severe damage if the strike continues for a long time.”
Type of fallacy: Arguing in Circle
Reason: Damages are already observed during strikes.

10. Time Stamp: 24:40-24:44

Transcript: “You don’t like pro bono cases. You said lawyer’s duty is about legal fees.”
Type of fallacy: Composition
Reason: Given that Mr. Choi already a senior lawyer doesn’t like pro bono cases doesn’t imply
that the generality of the lawyers doesn’t decide cases pro bono cases which pays little.

11. Time Stamp: 32:25-32:33

Transcript: “I already know that you played golf with that judge last week.”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
Reason: Personal knowledge on the close relation of Mr. Ham and the deciding judge was being
used as a threat by the opposing party to be used as an evidence to nullify the decision of the
judge in bias with Mr. Ham.

12. Time Stamp: 35:18-35:24

Transcript: “You know that you don’t get paid while the workplace is in a lockout, right?”
Type of fallacy: Leading Question
Reason: The use of a provocative statement aims to influence the head nurse to agree on the
counteroffer of Mr. Choi.

13. Time Stamp: 51:52-52:01

Transcript: “There has been a regular bullying done toward new nurses. Punishment for bullying
has been proposed at the National Assembly.”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
Reason: The fact that the information accidentally acquired by Mr. Go about bullying of the
Senior nurses over the new ones was used by Mr.Choi as a counterclaim to threaten the head
nurse to voluntary resign and accept the benefits presented to her in exchange of the forfeiture
future case against her on bullying.
SUITS-KOREA: EPISODE 13 (The moment you fly up with wings called lies, you will not be landing)

1. Time Stamp: 1:56-2:20

Transcript: “My question is this. Kang Soek has never kept anyone by him, no juniors or
superiors. So why did he suddenly let you come work for him? If Kang Soek doesn’t hold one of
your weaknesses against you, wouldn’t that mean you hold one of his weaknesses?”
Type of fallacy: Complex Question
Reason: The question seeks to answer the question behind the hiring of Mr. Go as an associate
of Mr. Choi that will reveal other related question behind the weakness of Mr. Choi, identity of
Mr. Go and others.

2. Time Stamp: 6:08-6:12

Transcript: “Why are you working as Geun Sik’s associate and not for Kang Seok?”
Type of fallacy: Question Begging Language
Reason: The question aims to know the true ulterior motif of Ms. Kim Moon Hee on siding with
Mr. Chae Geun Sik and Mr. Ham.

3. Time Stamp: 7:35-7:36

Transcript: “Everyone’s busy here, and you’re probably the busiest one of all. So why are you
sorry?”
Type of fallacy: Leading question
Reason: Kim Gina playing disinterested on the explanation of Mr. Go on ditching her pretends
that because everyone is busy there is no time for dating. She wants Mr. Go to admit that his
guilt of ditching her for their supposed dinner and for making her worry.

4. Time Stamp: 11:16-11:20

Transcript: “He claimed that there was a problem with the steering wheel, but it was actually
because of his poor driving skills.”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)
Reason: The fact that fist claim cannot be proven because of lack of evidence does not mean
that the second claim is correct because it is harder to prove that the plaintiff had actually poor
driving skills.

5. Time Stamp: 19:08-19:15

Transcript: “Yes, now that I think about it, your brain or the steering wheel isn’t the problem,
but your chicken heart is.”
Type of fallacy: Abusive - Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Reason: Mr. Choi wants to provoke the other party by attacking the party’s personal
characteristic so that he can be terminated the latter’s company legal counsel for the purpose
that he can be held liable against client’s case confidentiality.
6. Time Stamp: 37:18-37:33
Transcript: “If it weren’t for the steering wheel, Mr. Kang Yeong Ho’s family could have died.
Let’s see how he must’ve felt during that situation. Stop. Stop.”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
Reason: Mr. Choi threatens the other party by enacting the accident that killed Mr. Kang Yeong
Ho’s family caused by a defective steering wheel that compels the party to agree to the term of
Mr. Choi to compensate the living heir of Mr. Kang and withdraw the case filed again the
former.

7. Time Stamp: 46:18-46:27

Transcript: “But if you get rid of this you’ll be committing a crime. A crime? You’re a practicing
law when you’re not even a licensed attorney.”
Type of fallacy: Circumstantial - Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Reason: The crime done by Mr. Go on the commitment of fraud doesn’t allow Ms. Hong Da Ham
from also committing a crime of that involves concealing/destroying of evidence.

8. Time Stamp: 55:24-55:26

Transcript: “Are you saying this is fake then?”
Type of fallacy: Leading Question
Reason: The statement directs on concluding that based on the evidence presented by the
opposing party which was verified as a forged document will mean that the case against the
accused will be dismissed and the offender will be rightfully punished.
 SUITS-KOREA: EPISODE 14 (The best way to keep a secret is not telling it to anyone)

1. Time Stamp: 1:11-1:25

Transcript: “If not, they will consider that it was done by the entire law firm and disclose this to
the media.”
Type of fallacy: Composition
Reason: The mistake of an employee may reflect as an act of the whole firm in which he is
employed. A private person may or may not represent the organization in which he belongs to
while in the performance of his duties.

2. Time Stamp: 5:39-5:51

Transcript: “It wasn’t Kang Seok’s fault. His secretary’s fault is his fault. I guess you’re trying to
tell me that I’m also responsible for Kang Seok’s mistake.”
Type of fallacy: Hasty Generalization
Reason: A superior can be held liable upon the mistake of his subordinate if proven that he have
committed negligence in his supervision. The fault of Ms. Hong will reflect on the effectiveness
of Mr. Choi as a superior and will also further reflect on the personality of Ms. Kang..

3. Time Stamp: 36:17-36:20

Transcript: “This time due to his prank, two innocent lives were taken. And the man who
suffered from the loss of his family ended up killing himself.”
Type of fallacy: Accident
Reason: The act of committing the act of prank of Mr. Choi to Mr. Chae doesn’t necessarily
mean that the case won by the former constitute prank because the claim presented by Mr.
Choi in the hearing was supported with facts and evidenced.

4. Time Stamp: 40:56-40:58

Transcript: “He’s asking why Mr. Choi chose you as his associate”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)
Reason: Mr. Chae and Mr. Ham was no the proper party in which Mr. Go needs to persuade
regarding why he is competent enough to be chosen as an associate of Mr. Choi as it may be
used against him and Mr. Choi to be terminated from the law firm.

5. Time Stamp: 48:28-48:39

Transcript: “He is a kind heart toward people whether it’s a client or opponent, it’s just that he
doesn’t like other people to find out.”
Type of fallacy: Argumentum as Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
Reason: The defendant’s lawyer appeals to people’s emotion for a sympathy vote for the form
of the trial will be based on the number of votes that will be received by the party depending on
the evidences and witness presented.
6. Time Stamp: 51:50-51:54
Transcript: “Did the defendant order you to destroy the report?”
Type of fallacy: Leading Question
Reason: The question leads the argument that there is an actual anomaly on the crime that the
witness had committed a crime that will be charged against the accused.