Embedded Files
Korean Original: 입장문
English translation by Grok AI
Statement
Hello, this is Min Hee-jin.
Despite repeatedly expressing my desire to no longer be entangled in exhausting and unproductive matters, I am compelled to address the ongoing distortions and false attacks against me.
Even after issuing a polite official statement regarding Dispatch’s false reporting, the unfair situation has not been resolved, forcing me to clarify my position by sharing the full KakaoTalk conversation through Instagram Stories. However, on the 9th at midnight, B posted directly, coincidentally echoing Dispatch’s claims, and today, following an interview with JTBC, I can no longer withhold the details I have been holding back and must clarify the facts.
This issue initially arose, I believe, as a pretext to push for my dismissal, unrelated to B. Out of consideration for B, who was unintentionally dragged into this, I have been cautious and refrained from disclosing all details.
To allow third parties to understand the truth, the full context between the involved parties must be revealed. However, doing so could cause further harm, which has been frustrating, but I have strived to clarify the facts without exposing complex personal matters.
Yet, B’s sudden appearance, spreading false claims that I unilaterally protected Deputy A or lied, while accusing me of failing to maintain neutrality and objectivity as CEO, mirrors Dispatch’s narrative and demands a public apology. This strange development suggests this is no longer a personal issue, and I am obligated to clarify the facts in detail. I ask for your understanding.
1.
B is not a new employee. B was a 7th-year employee with a base salary of 130 million KRW (excluding incentives), the highest among ADOR employees, comparable to executive-level compensation.
2.
B was recommended by an acquaintance familiar with HYBE and the entertainment industry (the same person who recommended Deputy A) and was hired for a business leader and executive strategic staff role.
3.
Despite B’s experience being unrelated to the entertainment industry, their salary was set exceptionally high for their years of experience. The reasons for this top-tier compensation were:
B’s demands were based on their education and previous job compensation.
My hiring philosophy does not prioritize gender or age.
Considering the critical role of a business leader and the urgent need for the position, I accommodated B’s desired salary despite their lack of relevant experience, hoping to encourage performance commensurate with the compensation.
I believed B’s confidence in requesting such a salary reflected their passion, responsibility, and capability.
With HYBE’s 6-month probationary period (“WinTogether”), I planned to evaluate B’s actual performance and adjust the salary and incentives accordingly.
4.
Given the executive-level salary, the probationary period was crucial. Despite expectations for basic team setup and leadership, B struggled from the onboarding phase, producing subpar work, including emails with errors that Deputy A or I had to revise. Frequent issues and complaints arose, disappointing expectations.
Other employees often reported difficulties communicating or collaborating with B, requiring me and other executives to mediate. As a result, unaware of B’s high salary, other employees perceived B as junior-level. B acknowledged these struggles but also expressed intentions to report colleagues for violating HYBE’s Respect@Work (RW) policy, leading to doubts about B’s suitability as a business leader or strategic head.
Effort and performance are separate. Given B’s top-tier treatment, performance evaluation was critical for fairness. Records of B’s underwhelming work exist.
5.
Despite B’s struggles, I wanted to give them a chance. Knowing their issues with Deputy D and others, I hoped a change in work environment might help and asked the newly joined Deputy A to guide B. However, conflicts persisted due to B’s poor output.
6.
At the end of the probationary period, B’s evaluation was unfavorable. A 360-degree review, including peer feedback, rated B below average. Considering salary fairness and performance, executives concluded continued employment was untenable. I was not involved in the evaluation; Deputy A finalized B’s assessment.
7.
During the probationary review, discussions about reducing B’s salary and adjusting responsibilities occurred (mid-February). B agreed to the salary cut but provided no response to Deputy A’s request for clarification on suitable roles. On February 28, B expressed intent to resign to another deputy, then filed an RW complaint against Deputy A on March 6.
B’s RW Complaint (Respect@Work):
1. Sexual Harassment Allegation
Summary: Deputy A requested B’s attendance at an unwanted dinner with an advertiser involving alcohol, citing B’s role as a “young female” representative. Despite B’s objection, they attended the dinner on February 15 in Cheongdam-dong.
[February 15 Meeting Timeline]
① The dinner was initially booked at Mongjungheon (Chinese restaurant) but changed to Izakaya Makoto Cheongdam due to unavailability (6 PM reservation).
② On February 15, at 5 PM, Deputy A called B, stating the meeting would end in an hour.
③ The dinner began at 6 PM; Deputy A left around 7 PM after pre-paying.
④ B stayed until 9–10 PM, continuing the dinner alone.
⑤ At 10:37 PM, per my request, B reported the meeting summary in a group chat. I challenged the necessity of the meeting and advised against such gatherings in the future.
In a resignation interview with HRBP, B cited Deputy A as 80% of the reason for leaving, with 20% due to organizational fit and the proposed 40% salary cut.
8. Discrepancies in the Sexual Harassment Allegation
a. Clear Purpose of the Meeting
B was responsible for managing the advertiser.
The meeting’s purpose (business discussion, store visit) was agreed upon by A, B, and the advertiser (C). Describing it as being “forced to attend” is misleading.
B managed the brand before Deputy A’s arrival and was expected to follow up on plans.
When asked about the date and time, B initially agreed but later suggested A and C meet without them, citing their “junior status.” Deputy A, aware of the pre-agreed meeting, interpreted this as caution due to B’s prior mistakes, which I had previously addressed.
I typically avoid unnecessary dinners with advertisers. B had been cautioned for arranging such meetings with another brand (E), wasting time without results. Deputy A interpreted B’s hesitation as caution from past feedback, not refusal.
Describing the meeting as an “alcohol-involved” dinner is misleading given the context.
b. No Irregularities, B’s Contradictions
B’s report omits that after dinner (around 9:30 PM), they walked 4 minutes to the advertiser’s showroom, concluding the schedule. This is confirmed by C’s additional payment receipt.
B’s claim of being “left alone” until 10 PM is inaccurate. While Deputy A was present, each ordered one highball. After A left, B and C voluntarily ordered additional drinks (C: 3, B: 2), confirmed by records.
Advertiser C described B as sociable, discussing personal matters, with no forced drinking.
Omitting the showroom visit and additional drink orders while emphasizing being “left alone” distorts the facts. No irregularities appear in B’s KakaoTalk reports.
c. Transparent Venue Selection
The venue was chosen by advertiser C in a group chat including B, not by Deputy A. Initially, a Chinese restaurant was considered but was fully booked, leading to the izakaya. It was not chosen as a “bar.”
B’s emphasis on “alcohol-involved” misrepresents the context. My comments, cited in the report, were taken out of context to create confusion.
d. Conflicting Claims
B claims Deputy A referred to them as a “young female.” Deputy A denies this, stating B’s salary and experience did not align with being “young.” The claims conflict.
9.
B alleges I framed them as incompetent to invalidate their complaint. However, B’s performance was evaluated by multiple team members, including managers, via 360-degree feedback and documented records. I was not part of the evaluation. B had previously expressed struggles to me during an overseas trip, agreeing to proposed solutions and the salary cut.
10. Timeline Clarification
B’s evaluation occurred on February 22, resignation was announced on March 2, and the RW complaint was filed on March 6. The complaint’s provocative wording (“young, female, bar, unwanted, left alone”) and omissions suggest distortion, especially given the misuse of my comments.
11.
HYBE HR fully handled the investigation and closure. Due to complainant protection, I could not directly engage with B during the process. The case was closed with no findings of fault, followed by reconciliation between A and B, as previously shared.
As CEO
In conflicting claims, I rely on objective facts. Unable to contact B due to HR guidelines, I verified details with Deputy A and advertiser C. The discrepancies and prior conflicts between A and B raised doubts. Sexual harassment is a grave issue, especially for women like me with over 20 years of experience. I do not conflate human issues with gender. Despite offering B opportunities, their complaint minimized their role, portraying themselves as a powerless junior, which was misleading given their high salary and treatment.
Current Developments
The issue is being muddled with inflammatory terms like “sexual harassment” and “cover-up,” diluting the truth. B’s sudden targeting of me, a neutral third party, at a time when HYBE faces media scrutiny, is suspicious. Their midnight post from a new account spread rapidly online, and their response to my inquiry used uncharacteristic language, suggesting external influence. Today’s JTBC interview and a Sports Today article linking Deputy A to “management takeover” by a journalist with a history of negative coverage about me further fuel suspicions of orchestrated attacks.
Errors in B’s Instagram Post
B’s claims that I interfered in the investigation are inconsistent, with conflicting timelines and retracted statements, raising doubts about their intent. I expected B to perform commensurate with their salary, not to focus on irrelevant personal anecdotes. Their complaint letters were about grievances, not dedication.
Victimhood
Claiming victimhood does not make it so. B admitted to being “cowardly and extreme” and thanked me for facilitating reconciliation. False complaints can ruin lives, and B must recognize this.
To B
How do you explain the falsehoods in your complaint?
Why target me through the media when HYBE HR decided the outcome?
Why criticize me for illegally leaked data instead of the leakers?
Why call my original KakaoTalk messages fabricated while trusting manipulated leaks?
Who provided you with inaccessible materials?
B’s high salary was my decision as a woman, not discriminatory. If anything, B received exceptional treatment. I am not biased toward A or B. I only sought fairness and resolution.
Those orchestrating attacks to tarnish my image must stop. I have restrained myself, but I am dragged into this baseless controversy, forced to justify my intentions while protecting others’ identities. Who is truly suffering secondary, tertiary harm here?
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse