Min Hee-jin Sent to Prosecution on Defamation and Obstruction of Business Charges Over 'ILLIT, NewJeans Copy' Allegations

Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin has been sent to the prosecution on charges of defamation and obstruction of business for raising allegations that the group ILLIT "copied NewJeans." The controversy regarding the similarity between NewJeans and ILLIT, which shook the K-pop industry, has escalated into a legal battle as the former CEO who first raised the suspicions has now become the subject of criminal proceedings. However, the referral to the prosecution means the investigative agency has handed the case over to the prosecution, not that the charges have been legally confirmed or that guilt has been established.

The Yongsan Police Station sent former CEO Min and individuals identified by the surnames Lee and Shin, who were deputy CEOs of ADOR at the time, to the prosecution on charges of defamation and obstruction of business on the 1st. The three individuals faced these charges during the process of raising plagiarism allegations surrounding ILLIT in 2024. At the time the case was referred, the Prosecution Service was in charge of the relevant duties, and currently, the Prosecution Office handles the related work. This measure is noteworthy in that the claims made by both sides, which were publicly raised at the time, are now being dealt with in criminal proceedings.

The controversy began in earnest in April 2024 when former CEO Min claimed that ILLIT's concept and activities followed NewJeans. During a press conference, Min questioned the similarities between the two groups, citing ILLIT's audition posters, Hanbok pictorials, debut methods, and choreography. A statement released by ADOR three days before the press conference also contained content raising suspicions of plagiarism by ILLIT. This expanded beyond a simple difference of opinion within the industry into a debate surrounding the creative methods of K-pop agencies and the identity of artists.

ILLIT's agency, BELIFT LAB, strongly denied the allegations. Their position is that Min's claims are untrue and have caused damage to the reputation and business of the company and its artists. In May of the same year, BELIFT LAB submitted a complaint to the police against former CEO Min. The controversy led to a legal dispute as the claims from Min's side, that the issues were raised to protect the originality of NewJeans, clashed directly with the rebuttal from BELIFT LAB, that they suffered damage due to groundless suspicions.

The debate over the similarity between the two groups was also addressed during the exclusive contract dispute between NewJeans and ADOR. In a provisional injunction case regarding independent activities in March 2025, the court judged that it was difficult to view ILLIT as having plagiarized NewJeans based solely on the submitted materials. Subsequently, in a lawsuit to confirm the validity of the exclusive contract in October of the same year, the court also viewed it as difficult to recognize the copying of a concept based only on the fact that there were some similarities in planning documents and pictorials. It has once again been revealed that whether similarities exist and whether they constitute plagiarism legally are separate issues.

In this criminal case, the core issue is not only the plagiarism controversy itself but also whether the method and content of raising the suspicions were within the legally permissible scope. While pointing out the similarity of creative works and criticizing industry practices is related to the freedom of expression, if one asserts contents that differ from the facts or obstruct the business of a specific company in the process, a separate legal judgment may be required. Conversely, the mere referral by the police cannot confirm that the claims of former CEO Min and others were false. Whether the charges are actually established must be determined through subsequent judgments on investigation records, evidence, and relevant legal principles.

This case shows how conflicts surrounding the originality of concepts and creative rights in the K-pop industry can lead to complex legal issues. Popular culture content, such as music, choreography, styling, and pictorials, must share trends and genre conventions while simultaneously building the unique identity of the artist. Therefore, while it is difficult to conclude plagiarism based solely on outward similarity, the act of raising questions about industry creative practices cannot be unconditionally blocked. Ultimately, a judgment must be made based on specific evidence and the context of the expression.

Since standing at the center of the dispute surrounding NewJeans and ADOR, former CEO Min has continued various legal battles. This referral draws attention in that the plagiarism allegations surrounding ILLIT have led to another legal issue. However, what is confirmed at this stage is the fact that the relevant parties were sent to the prosecution on charges of defamation and obstruction of business, and that the court judged it difficult to recognize the plagiarism claims in previous civil cases. Whether criminal responsibility will ultimately be recognized is expected to be concluded through separate procedures.

Read the original (Korean)