Prosecutors Referral for Defamation and Obstruction of Business
The Yongsan Police Station in Seoul confirmed the referral on October 1, stating that Min spread false plagiarism claims to disparage HYBE and Illit’s label, Belift Lab. Two former Ador vice presidents were also referred on the same allegations.
Police cited Min’s April 2024 press conference, where she accused Illit of copying NewJeans’ audition posters, hanbok photoshoot concepts, and debut approach, as well as an ADOR statement issued three days prior alleging plagiarism. The statement, which police found grounds for charges against two ADOR vice presidents, claimed Illit’s concept was “a derivative of NewJeans,” according to Sportschosun.
Timeline of Allegations and Legal Responses
Min first raised the allegations in April 2024, accusing Illit of copying NewJeans’ debut strategy, choreography, and visual concept. Belift Lab filed a criminal complaint against her in May 2024. Courts evaluating the disputes have so far declined to recognize the plagiarism claims. In March 2025, a court ruled that it was difficult to view Illit’s concept as a copy of NewJeans, while an October 2025 ruling found similarities in internal documents and photo shoots but no conclusive evidence of copying, The Korea Times noted.
Min also accused Source Music, which oversees NewJeans, of neglecting some members and questioning LE SSERAFIM’s earlier debut, according to Star News Korea. Source Music denied the claims, stating, “The claim by Min Hui-jin (CEO) that Source Music copied their launching strategy is false.”
Court Rulings Dismiss Plagiarism Claims
Multiple courts have rejected the plagiarism allegations. In March 2025, during a provisional disposition lawsuit to confirm Ador’s agency status, the court stated, “It is difficult to view ILLIT’s concept as plagiarizing NewJeans, and NewJeans’ concept is ambiguous as a subject of intellectual property protection,” according to Sportschosun. A subsequent October 2025 ruling on NewJeans’ exclusive contracts also found insufficient evidence to conclude Illit replicated NewJeans’ concept, further undermining Min’s claims.
Source 2 also notes that the police’s decision aligns with previous court rulings, including a March 2025 ruling dismissing the plagiarism claim and an October 2025 ruling stating “insufficient evidence” to conclude Illit copied NewJeans.
Min’s Response to Police Referral
In a statement, Min called the referral “merely a provisional judgment by an investigative agency,” not an indictment or court ruling. She argued that the same police station had previously declined to refer a separate HYBE complaint against her. Min also accused HYBE’s labels of stalling damages suits, claiming Belift Lab disrupted a Seoul Western District Court case by filing a motion to reopen arguments citing the police referral, The Korea Times reported.
Ongoing Legal Battle Over Damages
Belift Lab’s damages lawsuit against Min, which has been ongoing for over two years, is set for a ruling on November 13. However, the label’s motion to reopen arguments—citing the police referral—has delayed proceedings, according to The Korea Times.
Source 3 details a 500 million won damages lawsuit filed by Source Music against Min’s company, Jeon, which has drawn scrutiny for procedural delays.
Contrasting Perspectives on the Case
While police and prosecutors have referred Min for defamation, courts have consistently dismissed the plagiarism claims. Sportschosun reported that police determined Min’s actions met referral criteria, citing her press conference remarks and a 2024 statement alleging Illit’s copying.
FAQ
Why was Min Hee-jin referred to prosecutors despite court rulings?
Police cited her press conference remarks and a 2024 statement as grounds for referral, claiming she spread false information to disparage HYBE and Belift Lab. However, courts have repeatedly dismissed the plagiarism allegations, with a 2025 ruling stating “insufficient evidence” to conclude Illit copied NewJeans, The Korea Times reported.
What happens next in the legal process?
If prosecutors decide to indict Min and the two former Ador vice presidents, they could face criminal penalties.
How have other parties responded?
Legal experts have noted that the plaintiff’s repeated procedural delays are unusual, indicating challenges in proving substantial damage. Min’s team argues that large corporations are exploiting legal resources to burden individuals.
Worth a look