Min Hee-jin, the former chief executive of ADOR who has argued that ILLIT, a girl group under HYBE (352820) label BELIFT LAB, copied NewJeans' concept, has been referred to prosecutors on charges of obstruction of business and defamation.
Seoul's Yongsan Police Station referred Min on the 1st on those charges, Yonhap News Agency reported on the 14th. Police also referred two then-deputy chief executives of ADOR, surnamed Lee and Shin, concluding that they faced the same charges.
Min is accused of spreading false information with the intent of disparaging HYBE and BELIFT LAB, even though ILLIT had not plagiarized NewJeans.
The dispute escalated in April 2024, when Min publicly argued at an emergency press conference that ILLIT's audition poster, hanbok photo shoot, debut format and choreography had imitated NewJeans. BELIFT LAB said in a statement the following month that the achievements of its artists and staff were being denigrated through groundless speculation and false claims, and that it had filed a criminal complaint against Min with police.
Police also found the two ADOR executives culpable in connection with how the company issued a statement raising suspicions that ILLIT had plagiarized NewJeans ahead of Min's press conference, according to the report.
The referral aligns with earlier civil court rulings in cases involving NewJeans and ADOR, in which judges declined to accept the claim that ILLIT had plagiarized NewJeans' concept.
In March last year, in an injunction case over which agency represented NewJeans, the court found it difficult to conclude that ILLIT had plagiarized NewJeans' concept and said it was also unclear whether the concept itself was subject to intellectual property protection.
In October of the same year, in the main suit seeking confirmation of the validity of NewJeans' exclusive contract, the court found that while some similarities appeared in planning documents and photo shoots, the evidence was insufficient to establish that ILLIT had copied NewJeans' concept.
Min's side objected to the police decision. In a statement on the same day, it said questions about ILLIT's similarities had first been raised by the public and the media, and that the press conference had come about in the course of HYBE's response.
It also stressed that a referral is a provisional judgment by investigators, separate from an indictment by prosecutors or a finding of guilt by a court. It argued that issues already rejected in the related civil proceedings were being revisited in a criminal process.
Min's side also cited a past case in which the same police station, handling a complaint filed by HYBE, viewed Min's objections as a management duty grounded in creative ethics and declined to refer the case. The latest decision contradicts those earlier investigative findings and the related civil rulings, it said, questioning its objective validity.
It further criticized a damages suit filed against Min by a HYBE label. With the case having been heard for two years and four months and a ruling pending, it said, the plaintiff has repeatedly applied to reopen arguments — a move it described as effectively a delaying tactic.