This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of strategic silence by comparing it with apology strategies(e.g., Pang et al, 2022) in dealing with actual crisis cases involving Kakao and SPC. Content analysis of comments related to the real crisis cases revealed that both Kakao's planned silence and SPC's concealed silence did not show significant differences in reputation and behavioral intentions, both before and after breaking the silence(silence strategy) and during the crisis response (apology). Considering that the ultimate goal of crisis response strategies is to recover a damaged reputation, it is noteworthy that the apology strategy, known as the most effective response strategy, did not significantly differ from the silence strategy in terms of reputation. Interestingly, the results showed that using the apology strategy after breaking the silence actually increased perceived accountability compared to the pre-silence period(silence strategy) in both cases. These findings challenge the Westerncentric crisis theories(Coombs, 1999) that stigmatize silence strategies and suggest that strategic silence, when considered as part of crisis response strategies, might be more effective than apologies. This study holds significance in empirically validating the new possibilities of strategic silence as a crisis response strategy through real crisis cases. Additionally, it highlights the theoretical and practical implications of integrating strategic silence types and types of breaking the silence into crisis theories, calling for the development of a new matching system between crisis types and crisis response strategies.