I Became a Malicious Streamer

This content is a viewer participation type that I, along with the viewers, create together.

The prosecutor and the lawyer, who are leading the trial, have been given the right to speak, and I took care to choose their voices with a certain level of caution because they would be featured in the broadcast.

While the fun generated from their remarks was secondary, I wanted to prevent any controversy from arising in advance.

Just by looking at them, you could tell this person was a little off from the beginning, and those who seemed likely to make trouble were filtered out, leading to the current lineup of prosecutor and lawyer.

However, live broadcasts always have their variations.

Unlike a broadcast where mistakes in comments or potentially misleading words can be edited out, live streaming delivers every single word directly to the viewers and can always return to bite the host.

It guarantees fun, but it’s also a double-edged sword filled with risks.

Momentarily flustered, I reminded myself that I was live on air and asked again, holding a hint of tension. If any statement could potentially cause controversy, I would immediately mute the lawyer’s mic.

Yet, to my surprise, the lawyer’s remarks were not as concerning for the broadcast.

“Lawyer, what do you mean? Are you saying the defendant has a disability?”

“To be precise, the defendant is classified as mentally disabled and is incapable of normal judgment.”

“Ah…”

Everyone in the chat goes wild with laughter: “Did he really just use the mental disability excuse? LOL!”

Someone else pops in: “Where have I seen this routine before?”

Another one chimes in: “Does this mean he can get his sentence lightened?”

“Oh, right! Because he’s mentally disabled, let’s just let it slide!”

“Lawyer, you must have studied law a bit!”

The lawyer continues.

“Let’s take another look at the messages our defendant Mingdu sent. Initially, he seems to show normal behavior—he praises our channel host Mollu and even throws in some playful criticisms. But then, out of the blue, he confesses his love for Mollu, saying they are in love. By the end, he even claims Mollu is his wife. Do you all think this is normal?”

It sounds quite fluent, as if there’s a script, and he has probably prepared more than I thought, even though it has only been a day since he was assigned to this case.

The chat bursts with agreement: “Definitely not normal… LOL!”

“300,000 Molbuni (fans) collectively are mentally disabled!”

“Normal Molbuni wouldn’t act like that in the chat… they’d do it secretly!”

“That’s even creepier.”

“Better to quietly enjoy than to be publicly executed like this.”

The lawyer punctuates the swarming chat with a decisive statement.

“I’ll make my final statement. The defendant is likely a serious delusional person, classified as mentally disabled, and our South Korean constitution does not punish the actions of such individuals. He does not even know who he is or what he has done. Instead of punishing them, we should feel pity and compassion. I ask for leniency from the honorable judge. That’s all.”

“Yes, I heard the lawyer’s statement well.”

So what you’re saying is, Mingdu thinks I’m his husband and is a mentally ill person. When looking at the chat history, it’s not entirely incorrect and has a certain persuasive quality. Perhaps it feels that way because the lawyer is so articulate.

Alright, alright. I didn’t expect much from the prosecutor and the lawyer, but they sure are delivering a funny situation.

This raises my expectations, and how will the prosecutor counter such a strong argument?

Of course, I could accept if they chose to concede defeat and step back.

Who knew the lawyer had prepared so much? This whole thing feels like a professional vibe, akin to the essence that so-called “experts” radiate.

“Prosecutor, are you ready with your counterargument?”

“Yes, I’ll make a statement.”

Oh. It seems the prosecutor isn’t giving up either. I felt a thrill at how the situation was getting more entertaining.

I need something to munch on—preferably something delicious! Aha! I quietly pull out some leftover potato chips from beside my desk. They may be a little soggy, but hey, it’s something!

“Thank you for your words, lawyer. I understand that defendant Mingdu is mentally disabled, which explains his messages. That’s completely understandable.”

Nods in agreement: “Yep, I’m with you there.”

“But there’s one thing. There’s just one part of what you said that I can’t agree with.”

“What’s that?”

“Just because he’s mentally disabled, you want leniency… I cannot agree with that.”

Protests erupt: “Objection!”

That’s a firm statement coming from the prosecutor! It seems he has a more rigid stance than expected. This contradicts the lawyer’s plea for compassion.

“The chat room is a public space that all of us use. You can’t treat it like your own home—saying whatever you want without limits! Of course, I understand that the defendant lacks simple discernment. But that doesn’t mean we can just remove his ban and let him chat again! What about the over 30,000 people who suffer because of him?”

In short, it’s a perspective that prioritizes the majority over the few. That’s also a valid point.

“And regarding the punishment… I don’t see any problem with the ban. Just because the South Korean constitution says so, it doesn’t mean we have to apply those rules to our broadcast. Just like the saying goes, ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do.’ This broadcast is governed by the rules set by Mollu. The rules Mollu created make no exceptions for those who seem mentally unstable. Therefore, I believe it’s only just for defendant Mingdu to be banned.”

Chat goes wild: “Wow!”

“Wise words!”

“This guy has a way with words!”

“What? The South Korean constitution? As if that matters here! This is Mollu’s broadcast!”

“Mollu is also a citizen of South Korea!”

“Mollu’s broadcast is ruled like a dictatorship!”

“Why are these two so serious? LOL!”

“If we let everything slide with mental disability as an excuse, there’d be no end to it!”

“LOL! If you’re that bothered, go to the hospital and get a diagnosis!”

“No way! The prosecutor says “cut!” at this level!”

For a moment, the prosecutor takes a breath before continuing.

“Honestly, just the ban itself is already quite a generous punishment. A ban means he can’t chat but can still watch the broadcast, right? How merciful is that? He can still enjoy the show even after doing something wrong. But if he’s unsatisfied, he wants to appeal his ban? That shows a lack of conscience.”

“Well, prosecutor. I understand. Just calm down a bit.”

“My apologies! I got a bit carried away there. To act out in this sacred courtroom…”

I reassured the prosecutor, who was getting increasingly animated. He got too caught up in his role and didn’t realize how much he was immersing himself in the situation.

Regardless, I got the essence of the feelings wrapped in his arguments.

“That’s it. I’ve heard both sides’ arguments, and it’s been quite interesting. Both of you showed me performances that exceeded my expectations. It was really captivating. You both felt like experts… If I remember correctly, you’re a college student studying performing arts, right?”

“Yes, I’m a student studying at the department of theater.”

“Ah, a performing arts major!”

“Oh, I saw this person’s application; they’ve acted as a lawyer three times.”

“This is why experienced people bring the heat!”

“A master of lawyer roles!”

“The defendant has a mental illness!!!”

“So that’s why they were so smooth!”

“No wonder it felt so natural.”

“Was the prosecutor also in performing arts?”

“Wouldn’t the prosecutor be in law school instead?”

“The prosecutor is…”

“I’m just an ordinary home security guard who watches a lot of courtroom dramas. Unlike the lawyer, I have no special background.”

“And you managed to pull off this neck-and-neck battle, that’s quite admirable!”

The chat erupts: “Aww, I’m feeling so relatable!”

“LOL! So you just imitated what you saw in movies?”

“Though it’s hard to call this just a plain ad-lib performance given the high quality.”

“You’ve got talent!”

I let out a concluding note and bid farewell to both the prosecutor and the lawyer. They had both done their part.

Now, all that’s left is for me as the judge to deliver my verdict. I had already made my decision.

“You both speak so well that I find myself resonating with you every time you talk. However, one particular statement stuck with me.”

I paused with the mouse cursor hovering between release and incarceration.

“The prosecutor’s statement—that it is quite a generous punishment to be allowed to watch the broadcast without chatting. That resonated with me. Because it’s true! Just because one can’t chat doesn’t mean they cannot enjoy the broadcast. One can have a good time even without typing!”

The chat buzzes: “That’s true!”

“Only those who chat suffer.”

“In other rooms, two-thirds don’t even type!”

“Just being able to watch is gratitude enough!”

The tension in the air builds as I prepare to reveal my judgment.

I pulled out a small gavel I had ready. Tapping it on the desk, I declared,

“The final verdict is not release… but continued confinement! I regret to inform you that defendant Mingdu’s ban will remain in place. But fear not—perhaps you can try again next time.”

Who knows? Maybe I’ll consider unbanning him during the next special event.

Of course, whether there will actually be another event like this remains uncertain!

---