This chapter critically evaluates the public perception and treatment of new religious movements (NRMs) in Korea, where derogatory terms such as idan (이단) and saibi (사이비) are frequently used. The discussion posits that these negative perceptions have been shaped by the rhetoric of anti-cult activists, predominantly associated with conservative Protestant church communities. The discourse surrounding NRMs in the public sphere is largely controlled and dominated by the hostile voices of mainstream Korean churches. The author challenges sweeping generalizations that categorize all NRMs under a single label, arguing that such judgments are indicative of broader religious bigotry and undermine the principles of religious freedom. By analyzing the perspectives of four key stakeholders—mainstream religions, media outlets, the government, and academics—this study reveals a significant dissonance between public perceptions of NRMs and the democratic ideals of civic culture that many Koreans profess to uphold. The investigation highlights various othering practices, including derationalization, cultic labeling, dehumanization, pathologization, and social criminalization. The most pronounced impact of these negative views is observed when the public confronts NRMs involved in serious criminal activities. The criteria that the public indiscriminately applies to condemn NRMs are often ineffective and irrelevant to these specific cases and do not adequately justify the criticism. Thus, this chapter proposes an alternative framework, particularly for critiquing problematic groups, which can apply equally to both NRMs and any troublemaking religious organizations, including mainstream religions. Drawing on rational choice theory and its market metaphor, the study aims to establish a universal and objective framework for moral evaluation of religion as a market player that provides religious services and commodities. In this framework, religion and NRMs function as suppliers, while practitioners and the general public serve as potential buyers. By adopting a market-oriented perspective, this study contends that all religious communities can be placed on equal footing, thereby creating an objective and fair foundation for criticism of wrongdoing.