ADOR’s Min Hee Jin Suspects HYBE’s Involvement With Alleged Sexual Harassment Victim

This article is part of our coverage of HYBE vs. ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin. You can read more and view the entire timeline here.

On August 8, 2024 (KST), an alleged former ADOR employee and a victim of Executive A’s sexual harassment and workplace bullying surfaced with an Instagram account—posting a string of images with a long statement detailing what happened.

Alleged Former ADOR Employee And Victim of Sexual Harassment Shares Detailed Account of What Really Happened With CEO Min Hee Jin

Then, on August 13, 2024 (KST), the alleged victim was interviewed by JTBC, who reported on the same details, blasting Min Hee Jin for covering up what the alleged victim experienced.

Following the JTBC interview, ADOR’s CEO Min Hee Jin rebutted the accusations made in the alleged victim’s statements with her own extensive one.

In a statement, written in a Google Doc form and shared via her Instagram, Min started off by claiming that she “[apologizes] for having to disclose the detailed circumstances” about the alleged victim (referred to as “B” in her statement) to clear her name.

“Hello, this is Min Hee Jin.

Despite repeatedly stating that I no longer wish to be involved in these exhausting and futile matters, I continue receiving attacks involving distortion of facts and false information. So, I must correct them.

Previously, I issued an official statement regarding Dispatch’s false reports, but the injustices have not been resolved. Consequently, I had no choice but to disclose all of the KakaoTalk messages through my Instagram Stories to clear my name. However, on the 9th, ‘B’ posted a statement aligning with Dispatch’s viewpoint and, today, spoke with JTBC in an interview. Given this situation, I feel compelled to reveal the content I had previously withheld.

From the beginning, this whole thing seemed to be an attempt to create a pretext for my dismissal, unrelated to B at all. Therefore, I have handled it with great caution, considering B’s unintended involvement, and have refrained from disclosing all the facts.

Third parties need to know all the details about the involved parties to fully understand the accurate facts. However, disclosing these details could potentially cause further harm. Hence, as frustrating as it was, I tried my best to clarify things while keeping complex personal matters undisclosed.

Nonetheless, with B surfacing to spread false claims—like that I unilaterally favored Executive A or lied—and also presenting distorted facts that I was not neutral and objective as CEO, echoing Dispatch’s claims and demanding a public apology, it has become clear that this is no longer just a personal issue. Thus, I have an obligation to unveil the truth, and I apologize for having to disclose the detailed circumstances.”

Min went on to reveal some never-shared-before points about the alleged victim, including how ADOR came to hire them and their wage. This set up Min’s following claim that the alleged victim struggled despite the high-salaried position offered.

“1. B is not a new employee. With seven years of experience, B’s base salary was 130 million won (excluding incentives), which was close to a C-level salary, the highest among the ADOR members.

2. B was recommended to me by an acquaintance who had an understanding of HYBE and the entertainment industry (the same acquaintance who recommended Executive A to me). B was hired for the role of a business lead and an executive strategy staff.

3. Although B’s previous experience was unrelated to the entertainment industry, B’s salary was set quite high relative to their years of experience. The reasons for this top-tier compensation were as follows:

– B demanded it based on their educational background and previous salary.

– I did not prioritize gender or age when it came to hiring.

– Most importantly, considering the significant role of a business lead and the urgent need for the role at that time, I wanted to encourage B to demonstrate the capabilities that align with the salary by accommodating their salary demands despite a lack of experience or background.

– Additionally, when B proposed such a high salary, I naturally believed that B would have the corresponding sense of responsibility and ability to match the enthusiasm shown during the interview.

– I also relied on the six-month probationary period (HYBE’s ‘Win Together’ program), during which I planned to evaluate B’s actual capabilities and adjust the base salary and incentives to align with their performance upon permanent hiring.

4. As mentioned, the probationary period was crucial since B was hired at a lead-level salary. Despite the expectation that B would be able to manage the team according to the executive-level salary, there were numerous issues and complaints right from the onboarding period. For example, B often produced poorly written business emails, which required correction by either Executive A or me, and there were frequent moments of unexpected disappointments and problems even with simple tasks.

Moreover, other team members began expressing difficulties in communication and collaboration with B, leading to ongoing mediation by me and other executives. As a result, those unaware of B’s salary naturally perceived B as a junior-level employee. B was aware of everything that was happening and struggled, too. But B also complained about wanting to report their colleagues for violations of the ‘Code of Respect’ within the company, even before the Executive A incident. This led me to reconsider B’s abilities as a business lead, and their position as the strategic staff became questionable.

Please understand that individual effort and actual performance are separate issues. Particularly since B was hired to be one of the top-paid leaders at ADOR, it was crucial to assess their performance and results, considering how they affect the fairness of treatment among other employees as well. Official records of B’s poor performance, regardless of their efforts, are documented in related materials.”

Min then linked the alleged victim’s struggle and role adjustment to their ultimate decision to leave ADOR and report Executive A for sexual harassment.

“5. Nonetheless, recognizing B’s efforts and struggles, I wanted to give them another chance. Knowing the issues B had with ‘Executive D’ and other employees, I thought it might be beneficial to change their work environment. So, I asked the newly-joined Executive A to lead and guide B. However, even with the change in leadership, B’s continued poor performance led to ongoing conflicts.

6. As a result of these issues, the evaluation of B at the end of the probationary period was not favorable. The company-wide feedback, including input from their colleagues, was below average. Given the salary equity issues (compared to other employees) and B’s performance, the decision was made that continuing the employment was not feasible. This judgment was made by the other employees excluding me, with Executive A responsible for giving the final assessment and conclusion.

7. During the probationary evaluation process, there were some discussions about reducing B’s salary while adjusting their roles and responsibilities (in mid-February). B agreed to the salary reduction but did not provide a satisfactory response to Executive A’s request ‘to share information about the roles they thought they could effectively handle.’ Shortly after, B expressed their intention to resign to another Executive (February 28). Then, immediately, B filed a ‘Respect @ Work’ (RW) violation complaint against Executive A (March 6).”

In the following parts of the statement, Min outlined the details of the report that the alleged victim made to ADOR regarding Executive A’s sexual harassment. According to Min, Executive A did not make the comment that the alleged victim believed to be sexual harassment.

“The contents of B’s RW (sexual harassment) report are as follows.

[Summary of B’s Report] ‘Executive A of ADOR requested that I attend a dinner with an advertiser that I did not want to attend, even though I indicated that my presence might not be necessary. Despite this, I was asked to attend because I would be the ‘young female’ representative. As a result, I attended a dinner with the advertiser on February 15 in Cheongdam-dong.

[February 15 Dinner Timeline]

① The dinner location was initially planned to be Cheongdam Mong Joong Heon (a Chinese restaurant) on February 14, but due to reservation difficulties, it was changed to Izakaya Makoto Cheongdam, set for 6 PM (Link).

② On February 15, at around 5 PM, Executive A called B and informed them that ‘a meeting had come up later that evening, so [Executive A] would need to leave in an hour.’

③ Dinner began at 6 PM on February 15, and Executive A left the table around 7 PM. The meal costs were pre-approved by Executive A (Link).

④ After Executive A left on February 15, B stayed and continued the dinner until around 9-10 PM.

⑤ At 10:37 PM on February 15, a summary of the meeting was reported to the KakaoTalk group chatroom at Min Hee Jin’s request. Subsequently, Min Hee Jin questioned the reason for such a meeting and expressed a desire to avoid such meetings in the future (Link).

Additionally, during the exit interview with HRBP, B stated that the primary reason for their resignation was Executive A (80%), with 20% being a mismatch with the organization, and that they decided to resign after being told that their salary should be reduced by 40%.

(All of this information was provided by HYBE HR.)

8. Several discrepancies were found in the sexual harassment report.

[8A]. Clear Meeting Purpose and Reason: At the time, B was responsible for managing advertisers. The original purpose of the meeting was for business (having dinner + visiting a store), which was shared by Executive A, B, and the ‘Global Brand Advertiser C.’ Despite the meeting’s purpose being clearly discussed among the three parties—which was to receive feedback for an event, discuss mid- to long-term plans, and check on the store (exhibition space)—B claimed that their ‘presence was not necessary,’ which seems strange.

B had been managing the C brand even before Executive A joined ADOR, so B needed to follow up on the current status and long-term plans after Executive A’s appointment.

B initially responded to Executive A’s inquiry about the date and time by saying, ‘I’m fine with the time and okay with [the meeting].’ B then added, ‘However, since I’m not at the same level [as Executive A and Advertiser C], it would be better if the two of you had dinner.’ Since the meeting was a commitment made by all three parties including Advertiser C, it was hard to interpret B’s response as a refusal. Instead, it was perceived as B’s cautiousness due to a previous feedback, as B had been cautioned by me in the past*.

*I usually avoid unnecessary meals or promotional meetings with advertisers. For instance, in the past, B had been warned for arranging meals with clients of ‘Global Brand E,’ when it could have been an office meeting or a phone call, resulting in wasted time on meals, travel time, and reports with no output.

Executive A, who knew that B had received this feedback from me before, understood B’s response as a desire to attend but with reluctance because of that previous feedback.

B knew about the nature of the meeting because B was included in the decision making process for that meeting. So, the ambiguous description of the meeting as ‘dinner with alcohol’ in the report seems strange in context and circumstances.

[8B]. B’s Ironic Report: The report filed by B omitted certain details.

After Executive A left, the meal was completed around 9:30 PM, and then they moved to an exhibition space a 4-minute walk away, concluding the night’s schedule. This was confirmed by receipts for additional payments made by Advertiser C after Executive A left.

However, the report describes B as if they were left alone at the dinner table until 10 PM. Moreover, while each person ordered one highball drink while Executive A was present, B and Advertiser C ordered additional drinks (C ordered three more while B ordered two more),  after Executive A left. These have been confirmed as individual orders.

According to Advertiser C’s testimony, B was very talkative, discussing not only work but also personal topics and friends, and was seen as very sociable. B did not order drinks that needed to be shared, nor was there anyone who pressured or forced them to drink. It is suspicious to claim that B is the only one telling the truth.

The omission of details is problematic, because B was not intentionally left alone at this meeting. Given B’s role, it was within their scope to exercise leadership and make decisions about the dinner or the store visit that followed. Emphasizing that they were ‘left alone’ is clearly a distortion of the facts. No signs of issues were found in the KakaoTalk conversation where B later reported on their work. This can be verified through the publicly available conversation content.

[8C]. Transparent Venue Selection Process and Intentional Record: The venue selection process was also transparent. As revealed in the previous KakaoTalk conversation, the meeting place was chosen by Advertiser C in the group chat that included B, and not by Executive A.

Initially, a Chinese restaurant was planned, but due to it being fully booked, it was changed to a nearby izakaya. It was not chosen ‘for the drinks.’ This was evident in the conversation, and it was clear that Executive A did not insist on the izakaya. Despite knowing the venue selection process, B emphasized the presence of alcohol in their report. The izakaya was chosen because the Chinese restaurant was full, but this reason was misrepresented.

Additionally, my comments were cited in the report but were used in a completely different context. The original intent of my comment was the same as the feedback B previously received. Using my unrelated comments to create confusion for a third party unfamiliar with the context seems intentionally misleading.

[8D]. Contradictory Claims: The alleged sexual harassment involves the comment ‘young female.’

Executive A stated that he never used the term ‘young female,’ considering B’s salary or experience, and B’s claim contradicts this. This situation presents a discrepancy between their respective claims.”

Min insisted that the alleged victim is distorting the truth…

“9. B claims that their report was manipulated to portray them as an incompetent worker and to cover it up. However, the evaluation of B’s work capability was conducted by a number of ADOR employees, including managers. The evaluation includes performance records and numerous related conversation logs. I was not involved in the evaluation process. Before Executive A’s appointment, B experienced conflicts with Executive D and other employees. During an overseas business trip I accompanied B on, B expressed their struggles and frustrations about their work, even crying. I comforted B and they agreed with the problem-solving and salary reduction plans I suggested. This led B to look forward to the arrival of Executive A.

10. To clarify the timeline, B notified their resignation on March 2, following the performance and compensation evaluation on February 22, and filed a sexual harassment and workplace bullying complaint on March 6. When looking at the sensationalized terms used in the report, such as being referred to as a ‘young female, left alone at a bar, unwanted,’ it is evident that the report contained a significant amount of distorted information, making it difficult to fully trust B’s claims. This was particularly apparent when the context of my comments was distorted in the report.

11. The investigation and resolution of the incident were handled solely by HYBE HR. Due to guidelines aimed at protecting the reporter, I was not allowed to directly question B about the related matters until the investigation was concluded. Ultimately, the case was closed with no charges, and was resolved with a reconciliation between Executive A and B, as publicly disclosed in previous Instagram Stories.”

…and questioned them for the reason behind “attacking” her when she, as a woman “having endured over 20 years of challenges in a male-dominated industry,” did what she could to resolve the matter to the best of her abilities.

“My thoughts as the CEO: In situations where claims are conflicting, it is crucial to base judgments on the objective factual evidence to determine the truth of the situation.

As the CEO, upon receiving the related information, I was told that I could not contact B, the person who made the report. Therefore, I verified the facts with Executive A, who was another person involved, and Advertiser C, the third party who was present with Executive A. Based on the context, timing, and facts, there were considerable strange and questionable points. This was especially true given that Executive A and B had a particularly strained relationship, noticeable to all other employees.

Sexual harassment is an extremely serious issue and can leave a lasting stain on an individual’s reputation, so it should never be handled lightly. Nowadays, when gender conflicts are heightened, it should not be exploited further. Particularly as a woman myself, I felt a strong obligation to avoid disregarding the genuine victims who may remain hidden. Having endured over 20 years of challenges in a male-dominated industry, I have no reason to differentiate based on gender. However, I do not confuse interpersonal issues with gender issues.

When comparing the facts, several significant discrepancies became apparent. Despite being assigned the highest base salary among ADOR employees, B did not meet the expected performance. Nevertheless, I had overlooked their performance issues and provided opportunities through various means such as role changes and leadership replacements. Therefore, B actually received significant benefits. Yet, B’s report downplayed their role and responsibilities, falsely presenting themselves as if they were an inexperienced new hire, which raised concerns about the report’s accuracy.

Again, B was the one who proposed their high salary, presenting themselves as independent and proactive during the interview. However, in practice, B often required assistance due to their unfamiliarity with the industry and exhibited a lack of independence, which led to the proposal for a salary reduction. This situation led to my profound disappointment in B and even fear regarding B’s intentions.

After the HYBE HR investigation closed the case with no charges, I was somewhat unsettled when B contacted me before their departure. Nonetheless, I wanted to hear B’s side of the story. Given that the case was closed, there was no necessity for further actions from my side. Despite my deep disappointment and anger, I made sure to review and confirm any possible overlooked aspects of B’s situation. By examining the disclosed chat conversations and listening to B’s perspective, I carefully verified all sides.

Ultimately, I realized that the core issue was a problem stemming from accumulated dissatisfaction, leaving me with a mixed feeling of pity and disdain for both parties. After the reconciliation between the two, I sought ways to offer B additional opportunities, but B decided to resign. I have no reason to favor either Executive A or B, as my relationship with both is not particularly long-standing. If someone questions why I might have ‘sided with’ Executive A, I would respond by asking, then, why I would grant B a higher salary if I were that biased towards Executive A. In the same manner, seeing the high salary as favoritism towards B is also a naive argument.

As the CEO and an impartial third party, my primary concern was to avoid any unjust outcomes and to resolve misunderstandings, hoping for better relations between the parties involved. Considering the facts that aren’t conflicting, B’s statements remain inconsistent. How can this be explained?

What’s true is true, so I am unsure what B’s claims of invalidation are attempting to achieve. It’s as absurd as the claim that I attempted a managerial takeover. I was not involved in the investigation, and I was simply notified of the results. What possible attempts could have been made? Who is B speaking to about such bizarre ideas to be attacking me like this—a third party who was not involved in the case?”

Min then slammed the alleged victim for their latest Instagram Stories updates, accusing them and their online movement to be connected with the movement to remove her from ADOR’s leadership. Min expressed her suspicion at B’s potential conspiring to frame her as the villain.

“I think the core of all these issues remains mixed. Provocative terms like ‘sexual harassment’ and ‘cover-up’ are being recklessly thrown around. This makes the situation seem like a grand conspiracy, akin to a ‘hostile takeover,’ with exaggerated language that has not even been submitted to the court, thus diluting the essence and facts. It is particularly troubling that, despite not being a part of their controversy, I am being forcibly dragged into it, with all the arrows being pointed at me.

It seems particularly suspicious that, just when HYBE is facing intense media scrutiny over various issues, B has suddenly appeared, targeting me—the very person who attempted to mediate—and seeking a public apology. This feels highly questionable.

I heard that B’s post, made at midnight on a newly created secondary account, was immediately spread across online communities. In fact, I received the news through acquaintances at 12:01 AM and contacted B right away. Despite the fact that I had not manipulated the chat contents I disclosed, B accused me of such and lying. I asked for clarification but received no response, so I requested a phone call. B, however, said a call was difficult and asked for explanations via chat.

In B’s JTBC interview, I saw the reference to the 77 chat messages I sent them. That’s how I communicate—sending multiple short messages. So, it is surprising to see even meaningless content being used in a way that suggests I was applying pressure. What would they have said if I hadn’t sent any chat messages at all?

After sending my opinion, I received a lengthy reply from B about 12 hours later. B’s tone in that reply was uncharacteristic, using formal language. It was full of expressions such as ‘refused even after two severe warnings’ and ‘offering you a chance,’ which seemed unusually mature and reminiscent of threatening language and content I had previously seen. This was unsettling and surprising.

If B had expressed dissatisfaction with vulgar language, it might have been understandable. But B said that their frustration was with my supposed biased stance. This was disappointing. Moreover, B cited email communications between myself and HYBE, which they could not have known whatsoever.

When I asked B what they meant by “offering [me] a chance,” they explained: ‘I meant to give you the opportunity to apologize to me in the manner you often use when dealing with the media.’ B then demanded a public apology through my Instagram Stories, insisting it be in the same manner as Dispatch’s claims. As you know, I have only used Instagram Stories once, and I question whether such a demand reflects a sincere desire for an apology. Especially troubling was B’s threatening comment, stating they would take action if I did not apologize to them in the same way as the media’s claims. This threat did not seem characteristic of B.

And indeed, their threat materialized today. This afternoon, I received a call from JTBC requesting my position following B’s interview. Shortly after, Sports Today published a sudden article claiming, ‘The alleged sexual harassment cover-up for Executive A is indeed related to the recent hostile takeover.’ The journalist who wrote this article had a history of publishing negative pieces about me. I have reason to believe that all of this is in preparation for another attack on me, and it raises questions about whether such a coordinated effort could be undertaken by an individual alone. Even now, I remain under pressure for dismissal. This leads me to suspect that these activities are being used as a pretext for further actions.”

In conclusion, after pointing out alleged errors in the alleged victim’s initial statement…

“Errors Found in B’s Instagram Statement: Regarding the absurd speculation that I intervened in the investigation and protected Executive A, B’s post on the 9th contains discrepancies. On Page 2, B states ‘I also want to address that right after I reported Executive A, CEO Min Hee Jin and Executive A directed all sorts of abusive language at me and interfered with the investigation.’ And on Page 7, ‘Given that it is reasonable to suspect your involvement from the investigation stage affected the outcome, this is not a personal matter between you and Executive A but a professional issue.’ And again, ‘Even before the investigation began, you and Executive A were aligned in covering up the report and putting me down for reporting anything at all.’

The time frames in these statements are inconsistent, and there is a noticeable shift to evasive and incoherent responses. It is concerning that B seems unable to maintain a consistent stance on the issue they describe as serious, raising questions about whether the intent and purpose behind their statements are genuinely their own.

What I expected from B was not amateur claims such as having been a fan of mine, spending significant amounts at the NewJeans shop, sending affectionate messages, or pledging loyalty. Instead, I expected B to perform their duties to the best of their ability and produce results commensurate with their salary. I, too, have also sent affectionate messages to B several times. Furthermore, the detailed messages B mentioned, which were supposedly sent with great effort, were complaints and accusations against Executive A and other employees and not an expression of personal effort.

Although I have been frustrated, I tried to protect B and share the facts as much as possible without disclosing specific details. However, B’s incoherent statements on the 9th and their uncharacteristic tone in their response made me feel that my efforts to support and consider B were in vain. The concept of being a ‘victim’ is not something that can be claimed merely by asserting so. If that were the case, everyone in the world would be a ‘victim’ for their own reasons. B should remember that after the case was closed, they confessed to Executive A and me that they were ‘cowardly and extreme’ and expressed gratitude for facilitating reconciliation.

False reporting fueled by anger can destroy someone’s life, which is a serious and frightening matter. It is crucial to recognize that the lives of others are as valuable as their own.

Again, B’s salary was at the level of a senior executive in a large corporation. B should reflect on their performance in relation to their responsibilities and consider the concept of ‘responsibility.’ Due to this painful experience, my values regarding recruitment and talent management have been shaken, and I will likely reconsider salary decisions hundreds of times for future hiring.

To eliminate any misunderstandings, I am attaching all the contents of B’s workplace harassment report and the results of HYBE HR’s investigation.

• Workplace Harassment Case:

① Executive A requested an unreasonable reporting method from subordinates, citing their own lack of multitasking ability, and made emotional and personal attacks when it was not followed. Example: ‘This is also an excuse. Let’s stop talking about this. Coaching you is not possible.’

② As a subordinate, when expressing an opinion about how remarks made by a higher-ranking person would be communicated to team leaders, the comments were over-interpreted, and personal attacks were made. Example: ‘It makes me think, “Why are you making these comments about things I assigned? Why are you giving me advice?,”‘ and ‘You make unnecessary comments and then get scolded by me,’ as well as, ‘My weekend is precious too. If you keep talking, I have to read and write again and again.’

③ During the process of coordinating the resignation date, Executive A insisted on a specific date (March 22) and made personal attacks when it was not agreed upon (Since the end date of ‘Win Together’ was March 17, I thought March 18 was appropriate for resignation, and since the salary was to be reduced by over 40% from March 18, I suggested the March 18 date). Example: Executive A insisted on March 22 as the resignation date. When I said he could not be deciding that, the response was, ‘Well, the company wanted the 29th, and if you can’t accept that, then it should at least be the 22nd.’ He also said, ‘You are causing trouble for me too. Do you know? Do you understand? You have caused me two troubles,’ which was a coercive statement with inappropriate tones and the term ‘trouble.’

④ Using a loud and irritated tone in shared office spaces where other employees can hear, or using a testy tone during meetings.

[March 14, 2024 (Thursday) 6:56 PM]

Hello, Hee Jin.

Regarding the RW report shared last week, an investigation was conducted, and it was concluded that ‘it is difficult to determine the case as workplace sexual harassment or workplace bullying.’

However, there were inappropriate behaviors displayed by Executive A, so I suggest that you, as the CEO, issue a verbal warning. Please refer to the attached file (link) for detailed information, and let me know if you have any additional questions.

(All of this information was provided by HYBE HR.)”

…Min demanded they stop “inciting and fueling public rage” for their benefit.

Final thoughts: I ask again. How will you explain the false information in B’s sexual harassment report? The disciplinary action against Executive A was decided by HYBE, so why are you targeting me through the media instead of addressing the issue with HYBE, which bears primary responsibility? Furthermore, instead of criticizing those who illegally leaked documents to Dispatch, why are you using this to accuse me? If B had not written false information in their sexual harassment report, I would not have felt disappointed.

Why do you believe the illegally leaked and reconstructed chats while claiming that the original chats shared between B and me are manipulated? Who provided B with the documents that B had no way of knowing?

The high salary granted to B was my decision as a fellow woman. If I had differentiated by gender and seniority, such treatment would never have been granted. What was unfair to B? Did anyone prevent them from using their leave? Please, then, tell me if it’s fair to show poor performance that does not match the salary level.

Since emotions are personal, someone might mistakenly think B received special treatment. What would you say if such misunderstandings arise? I hired B, a younger woman with less seniority, at a higher salary than a middle-aged male executive, expecting excellent performance. Does that mean I am more protective of women, and am I becoming an exceptional feminist?

I’m not the one who needs to be apologizing to B. It’s those who illegally obtained, manipulated, and provided documents to Dispatch. It is those who distorted and publicly exposed unnecessary information that B did not need to know, dragging B into an unpleasant situation. Whether B acted on their own or was influenced by others, I don’t know. But the spread of false information causing defamation is a serious issue. I hope B will not be further involved in this complex matter.

No one is insignificant in this world. Remember who is actually suffering from the secondary, tertiary, and further attacks with their real names exposed. I have tried to restrain myself and not explain further, but I am being dragged into an absurd situation in which I had no direct involvement. And while everyone else involved are anonymized and protected, my inner thoughts are scrutinized, and I am stuck in a perpetual cycle of explanations. Those who manipulated and distorted facts to tarnish my reputation—all the while involving others at a cunningly timed moment to incite and fuel public outrage—should immediately cease their inhumane actions.”

Stay tuned for updates.

HYBE vs. ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin

Share This Post

Facebook

Twitter