🔗 Link to the relevant video (1:46:35~)

5. The Beginning of the Incident

A) Circumstances regarding [Redacted]’s joining of Big Hit and changes to the promise of Big Hit’s first girl group debut

It is confirmed that the suspect Min Hee-jin left SM Entertainment in 2019 and joined Big Hit (currently HYBE, operated by former CEO Bang Si-hyuk) as CBO (Chief Brand Officer) in January 2019, accepting the proposal from Chairman Bang Si-hyuk. At that time, facts such as the plan to ‘construct Min Hee-jin World with Big Hit’s infrastructure + Min Hee-jin’s creativity’ and the ‘promise of the first girl group’ after Min Hee-jin’s joining are confirmed.

> Footnote 5. Vol 2 P. 347, attached Defense Attorney’s Opinion (Case 24-3628), Kakaotalk conversation between Chairman Bang Si-hyuk and Min Hee-jin

However, Min Hee-jin, who was the CBO of Big Hit at the time, stated that there were no suitable candidates among the Source Music trainees other than ‘Minji,’ a current member of NewJeans. Therefore, she held Source Music’s open audition to select the current members of NewJeans (then Team N). In particular, the parents of the members at the time stated that they signed trainee contracts with Source Music based on ‘the promise of the first girl group by HYBE’s Bang Si-hyuk and Min Hee-jin,’ but the promise was broken, and ‘LE SSERAFIM’ debuted first.

Min Hee-jin, the CBO at the time, stated that she established ADOR (established through the physical division of Source Music) and took office as CEO with 0% equity in order to keep this promise to NewJeans’ parents as much as possible and to debut them at the right time. Statements from NewJeans’ parents confirming this are also verified.

---

The so-called ‘Singaporean, etc., external investors’ hypothetical conversation (Separate Volume 1)

※ Conversation on Feb 4, 2024
Just before this, while mentioning [Redacted]’s attitude toward work (like a stone), VP Lee B* suddenly revealed hostility toward the parent company, saying the plan is ‘making the parent company suffer and ADOR gaining freedom.’ CEO Min Hee-jin is disregarding Lee B*’s words. Refer to the context (Separate Volume 1).

→ However, the complainant cited this conversation as important evidence of ‘leaving HYBE’ (de-HYBE-ization). But examining the entirety of the following conversation, it is confirmed that the content is not about ‘leaving HYBE’ for the purpose of ‘usurping management rights.’

---

D. Content of hypothetical conversation regarding external investors

※ Conversation on Jan 24, 2024
VP Lee B*** hypothesizes a situation where the parent company HYBE hates ADOR and lowers ADOR’s value upon a future ‘EXIT,’ and suggests receiving external investment with the permission of the parent company so that HYBE cannot interfere through an IPO (Initial Public Offering).

However, CEO Min Hee-jin dismisses it saying, “Thanks for thinking of all sorts of things for me,” and dismisses the hypothesis of securing friendly shares saying, “You think they would let that happen?” VP Lee answers, “We have to get the parent company’s consent.”

---

○ Criminal Intent (Mens Rea)

The suspects are undoubtedly ‘handlers of affairs’ (fiduciaries) for ADOR who bear the duty of care of a good manager and duty of loyalty as executives of ADOR, but they deny the intent itself regarding the act of breach of trust, citing the background facts of this case. Therefore, in judging the suspects’ criminal intent, it must be proven by methods demonstrating indirect facts that have a substantial relation to the intent. Whether a fact corresponds to such indirect facts must be determined by a method of reasonably judging the connection of facts based on normal rules of experience and through detailed observation or analytical power. (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8297, Dec. 11, 2008)

Upon examining the overall conversation data between the parties [Redacted] secured through the forensics in this investigation, it appears to be intended to protect the interests or performance of the victim, ADOR. Contrary to the statement in the complainant’s audit report, ‘EXIT’ does not mean ‘EXIT’ in the sense of ‘usurping management rights,’ but hypothesizes the situation after CEO Min Hee-jin fulfills the normal 5-year term under the shareholder agreement and exercises the put option.

Even assuming that some of such conversations gave the impression of ‘wanting to escape HYBE’s control range’ as claimed by the complainant including their audit report, the forensic-secured KakaoTalk conversations mentioned above assume the situation ‘after the expiration of the shareholder agreement term.’ Furthermore, even when hypothesizing ADOR’s IPO or having major shareholders sell ADOR, the major premise is ‘the parent company’s approval.’

Ultimately, the complainant appears to have summarized the circumstances of ‘leaving HYBE’ based on the suspects’ animosity toward the parent company. However, it is confirmed that the background of this animosity toward the parent company stems from deep animosity based on ‘Anti-illegality and Creative Ethics’ in entertainment corporate management, including: ① Damaged trust during the series of processes from CEO Min Hee-jin joining Big Hit to NewJeans’ debut, ② Distrust at the time of signing the shareholder agreement (false notification of call option), ③ Unfairness of the shareholder agreement content itself (toxic clauses), ④ The practice of ‘album pushing’ (inflating first-week sales) conducted within the group, and ⑤ Raising issues such as ‘copying issues between subsidiaries.’

Therefore, it is questionable whether the execution act based on this (sending a protest letter regarding the copy issue) can be generally evaluated as an act of ‘betrayal’ against ADOR as well as the parent company.

In particular, in the case of VP [Redacted], the fact that he was scheduled to resign internally at the time of February 2024 is confirmed by the forensic-secured conversation. It is also confirmed that CEO Min Hee-jin had some skepticism about VP [Redacted]’s work ability at the time, so it is not even confirmed whether they had a joint criminal intent, and there is no other evidence to prove joint criminal intent.