Police Send Min Hee-jin and 2 Ex-ADOR Execs to Prosecutors Over ILLIT Copy Claims

Seoul's Yongsan Police Station sent former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin to prosecutors on the 1st on charges of obstruction of business and defamation, over her claim that ILLIT copied NewJeans. Two former ADOR vice presidents, identified only as Lee and Shin, went with her.

The referral is not an indictment. Police decided there was enough to pass the case along, and the prosecution (the body is now called the Public Prosecutors' Office, formerly the Prosecutors' Office) will decide whether to charge. Guilt is not established.

Police concluded that Min spread false claims to disparage HYBE and its label BELIFT LAB, ILLIT's agency. They found the same charges applied to the two executives over a statement ADOR issued three days before Min's press conference, which raised the same plagiarism suspicion.

Where the case started

In April 2024, Min held an emergency press conference. She alleged that ILLIT had copied NewJeans' audition poster, hanbok photo concept, debut approach and choreography.

BELIFT LAB filed a police complaint the following month. It said "reckless speculation and false claims" had belittled the work of its artists and staff, and it accused Min of obstruction of business and defamation.

Courts had already weighed in

The courts have not been kind to the underlying argument. In March last year, in an injunction case over ADOR's standing as NewJeans' agency, the judges said it was hard to see ILLIT's concept as plagiarizing NewJeans, and that NewJeans' concept was of doubtful status as protected intellectual property.

In October, the main lawsuit over the validity of NewJeans' exclusive contracts went a little differently in tone. The court acknowledged some similarities in the two groups' planning documents and photo shoots. It still found the evidence too thin to say ILLIT replicated NewJeans' concept.

Min's response

Min's side pushed back on the 14th with a statement. It called the referral "only a provisional judgment by an investigative agency," not a prosecutorial charge or a court finding.

It also pointed out that the same police station had earlier handled a related complaint and decided not to refer the case. In that decision, the statement said, Min's concerns were treated as management's duty rooted in creative ethics. Her side questioned whether the new judgment holds up objectively.

The statement also went after BELIFT LAB, which has asked to reopen oral arguments in a damages suit awaiting a verdict. Min's side called that a stalling tactic, a large company using heavy legal resources to wear down an individual over time.

What prosecutors do next is the open question.