🔗 2025-07-25 Team Bunnies Post – Trial Content Excerpts

From the Court Proceedings

“The origin of this entire dispute was HYBE’s audit in April 2024. At that time, HYBE claimed when auditing Min Hee-jin that she ‘attempted to seize management control.’ In the process, they kept bringing up the so-called tampering issue, referring to ‘taking NewJeans away.’ However, at that time, the tampering issue was not included at all in the grounds for the audit or the grounds for dismissal. In other words, the ‘taking NewJeans away’ argument that was discussed at length earlier today was never a ground for the audit or dismissal in the first place.”

“The matters raised as the cause of the audit, and the contents of the audit report, were all found to be untrue as a result of the investigation, and on July 14, a decision was issued not to refer the case to prosecutors on the grounds of ‘no charges found.’ Therefore, the audit that ADOR initiated six days after Min Hee-jin’s protest was conducted with a clear direction and purpose, with the conclusion predetermined. This dispute arose from the fabricated frame of ‘attempted seizure of management control’ that HYBE concocted in retaliation.”

“The decision not to refer the case is presented as Exhibit 224. The most important content is this: In the third line, it says, ‘Contrary to what is stated in the audit report.’ In other words, they predetermined the conclusion, conducted the audit, and although the audit report stated that ‘she attempted to seize management control,’ the investigative authorities are saying, ‘No, contrary to the audit report, this was not an attempt to seize management control.’”

“If you look at paragraph 5, it states that [her actions] stemmed from opposition to various illegal aspects within the entertainment company, and therefore, the investigative authorities question whether acts such as sending a letter of protest regarding the copying issue could be evaluated as an act of betrayal against ADOR’s parent company. It is unclear whether there was intent to provide benefits to third parties, and it is also difficult to conclude that there was intent to cause harm to ADOR. Furthermore, it cannot be said that she recognized that her actions violated her duties as ADOR’s business administrator. And most importantly, Min Hee-jin’s actions were not acts that violated her duties; rather, they were actions that fell within her managerial obligations as ADOR’s CEO—that is, the determination was that she merely fulfilled her duty to protect the members as ADOR’s CEO, who is obligated to protect the members.”

“The decision not to refer the case appears to have been made to protect ADOR’s interests and achievements, not to harm them. The KakaoTalk content that [the opposing side] showed earlier was recorded in a way that differed from its actual intent in the audit report, and the content was distorted to make it look like an attempt to seize management control. However, upon closer examination, the investigative authorities determined that it was not intended to seize management control. This means that the KakaoTalk messages shown for about 10 minutes earlier were not meant in that way.”

“Additionally, Min Hee-jin’s internal whistleblowing was triggered by unethical practices in the entertainment industry, such as ‘album pushing’ tactics and subsidiary copying issues. This cannot constitute an act of betrayal against HYBE or ADOR, and it also cannot be viewed as an act that would increase the possibility of terminating NewJeans’ exclusive contracts.”

“1,700 news articles were published when the internal audit began. This was 5 days before NewJeans’ comeback. Idols become extremely sensitive before a comeback; it’s a time when they are cautious about even a falling leaf. But 5 days before, these articles came out, and NewJeans’ comeback was completely buried. Instead, articles poured out criticizing them with provocative words like ‘betrayal-dol’ and ‘backstab-dol.’”

“In other words, as a result of this audit, NewJeans suffered the greatest damage.” “After essentially forcing Min Hee-jin out by leaving her no exit other than to leave, they are now saying she left on her own accord. There was no plan in place after Min Hee-jin left. Lee Do-kyung also says, ‘Ah, this is burdensome. There’s nothing we can do right now. We have no plan.’ They pushed her out first, then thought, ‘What do we do about NewJeans?’ They pushed her out without any plan. In this situation, the members could not receive any management or protection.”

“This came out in the interrogatories. Did you consult with or explain to the members—who would be most affected—before dismissing Min Hee-jin? No. Before dismissing Min Hee-jin, did you make any plans to ensure the members could continue their activities normally? No. This is what the plaintiff answered. Then, they mentioned that they had proposed a work delegation contract before dismissing CEO Min Hee-jin—did you consult about that? The answer was no. In other words, even according to ADOR’s own responses, when they dismissed Min Hee-jin, there was no plan for how to manage the members after she left.”

“On page 94, we explained the absurd situation where the management didn’t even know what songs the members performed at their concert. The management that claims to protect, cherish, and manage NewJeans doesn’t know what songs the members sang at their concert, or whose song it was. Can you entrust management to such people?”

“Of course, there was a court ruling, but an injunction is a provisional measure made quickly without an evidentiary examination process. On the other hand, the decision not to refer the case that was issued this time was a decision made after the investigative authorities obtained evidence through compulsory investigation, conducted a thorough review, comprehensively considered both the complainant’s and the accused’s opinions, and deliberated over a long period of time. Therefore, the suggestion that the injunction ruling is somehow superior to the decision not to refer the case is not valid.” “And you mentioned that the police investigation found that audit procedures and such were lawful and compliant with regulations. But that is saying there were no procedural defects in the audit and that the prescribed rules were followed—it does not mean that the grounds for the audit were validated. The fact that the audit procedure was lawful and the fact that the grounds for and conclusions of the audit were found to be wrong upon investigation are two things that can coexist.”

“Our concern is that the Hanni greeting controversy might sound like a childish matter about hierarchy or greetings between senior and junior idols. But that’s not what it is. The greeting controversy was mentioned as circumstantial evidence that there was organized bullying and ignoring of the defendants within HYBE’s affiliates. What we are more concerned about is not that the act of not greeting itself is serious, but that in the process of explaining and establishing the facts about that incident, the video that could prove Hanni’s words was deleted, and Hanni was made out to be a liar. We are not taking issue with the fact that someone didn’t greet her—we are taking issue with the series of events that occurred in the process of discarding that [evidence]. Therefore, ADOR has missed the point on this matter.”