On January 28, a press conference was held in Seoul addressing the long-running “NewJeans tampering” allegations involving former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin. The event was organized by her legal representative, Attorney Kim Sun-woong of Law Firm Ziam. Min herself did not attend.
The stated purpose of the press conference was to present Min’s account of how the “tampering” narrative emerged, and to argue that the allegations originated not with Min, but through actions taken by a NewJeans member’s family member in coordination with external business figures.
What unfolded was a layered reconstruction—drawing on KakaoTalk and Telegram messages, call recordings, and a chronological narrative—intended to reframe the dispute from a simple artist-poaching allegation into a more complex interaction involving family intermediaries, external actors, and market-related implications.
Min Hee-jin’s Absence and the Framing of the Event
At the outset, Attorney Kim explained Min’s absence as the result of psychological distress related to recent developments involving NewJeans members’ families. According to the legal team, the subject matter involved sensitive personal relationships that made direct public participation difficult.
This positioned the press conference not as a personal rebuttal by Min, but as a formal presentation of materials meant to explain how the “tampering” allegation took shape and why Min’s side believes it misattributes responsibility.
Core Claim: Reassigning the Origin of the “Tampering” Narrative
The central assertion made by Min’s legal team was that the “NewJeans tampering” allegation did not originate with Min Hee-jin, but rather emerged from a process involving one NewJeans member’s family member—specifically an uncle—working alongside external business figures, with Min’s name and position invoked without her consent.
According to this account, Min was neither the initiator nor a beneficiary of any attempt to remove NewJeans from ADOR, but instead became entangled in a sequence of proposals and representations made by others.
How the Family Intermediary Entered the Picture (Clarified Sequence)
The revised timeline presented—expanded in subsequent SBS reporting—adds clarity to how the family intermediary became involved:
June 2024:
Min allegedly received a message from the father of one NewJeans member, suggesting that his older brother (“the uncle”) had extensive connections and could effectively handle negotiations with HYBE.
June–July 2024:
Following this introduction, the uncle began acting as a primary point of contact, positioning himself as a negotiator and intermediary. During this period, discussions were framed around influence, connections, and the possibility of resolving disputes with HYBE.
August 27, 2024:
Min was dismissed from her role as ADOR CEO, placing her in a weakened position while uncertainty around NewJeans’ future intensified.
September 9, 2024:
The uncle reappeared, this time presenting Telegram messages purportedly exchanged with HYBE executives and emphasizing political, institutional, or external backing—an escalation that Min’s legal team characterized as an attempt to bolster credibility and exert pressure.
This sequencing situates the uncle’s role not as an isolated actor, but as someone whose involvement began with family endorsement and evolved over time.
Min’s Responses in the Messages: Resistance Rather Than Coordination
- She questioned whether plans were being made without her knowledge.
- She objected to being associated with stock prices, governance disputes, or political influence.
- She emphasized multiple times that she was no longer ADOR’s CEO and could not be involved in negotiations framed around control or leverage.
In contrast, the uncle’s messages:
- Acknowledged that he had suggested Min leave ADOR.
- Confirmed that discussions about taking NewJeans out of ADOR had occurred—but stated that Min rejected them.
- Denied personal gain and asserted opposition to such actions regardless of financial incentives.
Min’s legal team argued that these exchanges demonstrate the existence of proposals and discussions without Min’s participation, rather than evidence of her orchestration.
External Business Figures and the Davolink Thread
The press conference also focused on the appearance of external companies and individuals, notably Davolink, Terra Science, and Davolink chairman Park Jung-gyu.
According to Min’s side:
- Min had no prior knowledge of these entities before late September 2024.
- She learned of them only through the family intermediary.
- Call recordings were released in which Min asks basic clarifying questions about who these companies were, supporting the claim that she lacked prior familiarity.
Subsequent messages referencing Davolink included repeated mentions of stock prices, timing, ESG events, and influence—language Min described as unsettling and inappropriate. Messages were also shown in which Min ultimately states she blocked contact and withdrew entirely.
The September 28 Meeting With HYBE CEO
A pivotal moment highlighted—further emphasized in SBS coverage—was Min’s decision to bypass the intermediary entirely and meet directly with Lee Jae-sang on September 28, 2024.
In an audio recording released at the press conference:
- Lee asks Min whether she has heard of Terra Science or Davolink.
- Min responds that she does not know what those companies are.
- Lee warns her not to meet them, citing concerns about rumors and potential fallout.
Min’s legal team framed this meeting as a verification step, arguing it shows Min actively seeking confirmation from HYBE leadership rather than relying on the uncle’s representations.
Allegations of Testimony Requests to Families
Another issue raised involved messages allegedly sent by a NewJeans member’s mother, claiming that HYBE’s side asked whether a family member could state that “Min Hee-jin committed tampering,” even if that person lacked direct knowledge.
Min’s legal team presented this as raising concerns about:
- post hoc narrative construction,
- pressure placed on families during litigation,
- and the credibility of testimony in shareholder and damages lawsuits.
No legal conclusions were reached at the press conference; the issue was framed as an unresolved procedural concern.
Litigation Context and Escalation
The press conference repeatedly stressed that:
- the April 2024 dispute between HYBE and Min centered on governance and control, not NewJeans’ contracts,
- Min claims she attempted to reach settlements with HYBE—at times considering relinquishing contractual rights—to facilitate NewJeans’ return,
- later developments, including contract termination actions involving Danielle and damages lawsuits, escalated the conflict and amplified the “tampering” frame.
What Remains Unresolved
Objectively, the press conference did not determine:
- whether the family intermediary’s actions meet the legal definition of tampering,
- whether external business figures engaged in market manipulation,
- whether HYBE’s alleged requests to families occurred as described,
- or whether Min’s narrative will withstand judicial scrutiny.
The materials presented constitute claims supported by contemporaneous messages and recordings, not adjudicated findings.
Why She Went Public Now: A Strategic Reading
At this stage, the question isn’t whether the press conference was emotional or dramatic. The real question is why this particular strategy, at this particular moment, when the courts—not the media—are where outcomes are decided.
If you read the move as strategic rather than impulsive, a clearer logic emerges.
1. The Hyein Factor: Getting Ahead of Damaging Internal Evidence
Reporter Lee Jin-ho publicly claimed that Hyein turned over crucial evidence to HYBE—evidence allegedly unfavorable to Min Hee-jin. The existence of internal cooperation changes the risk profile entirely.
Once a member is perceived—fairly or not—as having shared materials with the company, the legal fight becomes evidentiary. And evidence doesn’t argue; it just sits there and gets weighed.
Going public in that context functions as preemptive insulation. It allows Min to establish a frame before any such material becomes central to proceedings or leaks into public view:
– that information was misunderstood,
– that adults manipulated the situation,
– that narratives were constructed after the fact.
This isn’t about disproving evidence in advance. It’s about shaping how people are prepared to receive it.
2. Public Image Recovery Isn’t Optional—It’s Existential
Min Hee-jin no longer has institutional cover.
She has:
- lost her position at ADOR,
- lost operational control over NewJeans,
- lost multiple court rulings,
- and now runs an independent entertainment company that will live or die on trust.
That trust doesn’t come from judges. It comes from:
- investors,
- partners,
- creatives deciding whether to work with her,
- and capital deciding whether she is too radioactive to back.
At this point, she has no winning legal narrative. What she can still fight for is a moral narrative.
Playing victim isn’t elegant, but it is functional. She becomes an executive who overreached, but as someone who was isolated, betrayed, and used by forces larger than her. If it convinces enough people that working with her isn’t reputational suicide, she’ll have a chance.
3. Discrediting the Future Before It Arrives
By naming family members, highlighting intermediaries, and introducing the idea of manipulation by third parties, she lays groundwork that quietly undermines any witness who may later contradict her.
If someone testifies against her down the line, the reaction she wants already exists:
“Of course they’d say that.”
“Look at the pressure.”
“Look at who was influencing whom.”
She is preloading skepticism.
4. She’s Losing in Court. Public Opinion Is the Only Arena Left.
Strip it down to the basics:
she has lost, repeatedly, in formal legal settings.
That doesn’t mean she’s wrong on every point—but it does mean the system is not breaking in her favor.
At that stage, continuing to fight quietly in court offers diminishing returns. The downside risk remains high, and the upside is shrinking.
Public opinion, by contrast, is volatile. It’s emotional. It’s imperfect. And crucially—it’s still contestable.
This doesn’t mean she will “win” the public opinion war. But it does mean she has a chance there, and that chance no longer exists elsewhere.
