[Analysis] 2024-10-09 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports

This is an analysis of the 2024-10-09 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports.

In response to Belift Lab’s statement, NewJeans’ parents gave a follow-up interview to Ilgan Sports on 2024-10-08 which was published on 2024-10-09. 

1. Addressing Belift Lab’s false statement

The parents accused Belift Lab of distorting facts to damage NewJeans’ reputation.

"Belift Lab made a statement on the 7th, but there were so many factual errors in it.”

1.1. Hanni maintained ILLIT’s anonymity contrary to Belift Lab’s statement

The parents rejected Belift Lab’s claim that Hanni and the parents had harmed ILLIT’s reputation. They stressed that both label and artist names were kept anonymous until HYBE publicly identified ILLIT to sway public opinion.

"We’ve tried to resolve this issue internally within the company. We never mentioned specific labels or artists externally. It’s Belift Lab’s false statement that is defaming NewJeans and us.”

1.2. Belift Lab distorted Hanni’s claims

The parents criticised Belift Lab for deliberately reframing the issue, shifting public focus from workplace harassment by the manager to fabricated complaints about greetings among idols.

They clarified that Hanni never criticised the ILLIT members. Her issue was solely with the manager who instructed the idols to ignore her.

“Belift Lab’s statement claims that greetings between labels are ‘a matter of good faith,’ but that distorts the issue. Hanni never raised an issue about someone not greeting her. The issue is that another artist’s manager told their artist to ignore Hanni."

The parents highlighted that the greeting issue was a distraction from the real concern: the unfair and dismissive internal handling of issues involving NewJeans. 

We didn’t raise the issue over 'greetings'; our concern is about HYBE's unfair treatment of NewJeans."

The way HYBE and Belift Lab are trying to minimise it into being about greetings from fellow idols, when this incident was brought up as an example of both management bullying NewJeans and the overall company handling of these types of incidents, is a malicious attempt to make Hanni’s concern seem trivial.

2. Belift Lab’s false claims surrounding the review of CCTV footage

NewJeans' parents firmly denied Belift Lab’s claim that Min Hee-jin and her team watched the CCTV footage and later changed their position.

2.1. Belift Lab falsely claimed Min Hee-jin’s team reviewed the footage

2.1.1. Only Hanni and one manager were allowed to review the footage

Belift Lab’s statement falsely implied that a formal team under Min Hee-jin had reviewed the CCTV footage and subsequently altered their stance. However, HYBE’s own internal restrictions only allowed Hanni to view the footage accompanied by a manager.

"HYBE initially told us that only the person involved could review the footage, so Hanni and one manager watched it together."

This clearly establishes that there was no wider internal review conducted by ADOR or any formal “team”.

2.1.2. Min Hee-jin was not involved in the footage review at all

Min Hee-jin was never involved in reviewing the footage. Belift Lab’s reference to “Min Hee-jin’s team” was therefore knowingly misleading and mischaracterised the situation.

"Belift Lab’s claim that Min Hee-jin’s team made a new argument after reviewing the footage on August 14th is a blatant lie, as we hadn’t seen any footage prior to that date. Moreover, Min Hee-jin wasn’t involved, but they’re misleading the public by referring to ‘Min Hee-jin’s team.’"

2.2. Hanni didn’t have the opportunity to review relevant footage

2.2.1. Hanni only saw the footage after the critical parts were deleted

Due to HYBE’s internal policy and NewJeans’ overseas schedules, no one outside of Belift Lab was unable to review the CCTV footage until Hanni concluded her overseas activities.

"Hanni was extremely busy preparing for the Tokyo Dome fan concert and Japanese activities at the time. Once the activities in Japan wrapped up, she went to check the footage."

By the time she was finally able to review it, crucial parts — particularly the second encounter during which the manager gave the offensive instruction — had already been deleted.

2.2.3. The footage Hanni reviewed was from the first encounter, not the second

The footage shown to Hanni shows Danielle and an ADOR manager, confirming it was from the first encounter. The second encounter — when the bully occured — was already deleted from the footage. This is despite the fact that Hanni made it very clear that she was alone when the bullying happened.

"When we first raised this issue, we clearly explained that the incident happened while Hanni was alone. Yet, the footage HYBE showed Hanni on August 14th was of her with her ADOR manager and Danielle. Yet, the footage HYBE showed Hanni on August 14th was of her with her ADOR manager and Danielle."

Hanni later reiterated during her 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit testimony that she had viewed this footage and that it was irrelevant to the core issue. 

Despite prior warnings from both Hanni and the parents that the footage was unrelated, the same 8-second clip was later submitted by ADOR during the 2025-03-07 injunction court proceedings and misleadingly presented as though it was the only time the two parties had crossed paths.

2.3. Security personnel admitted HYBE deleted CCTV of the bullying

2.3.1. The second encounter was deliberately omitted

A security staff member told Hanni that a second clip did exist — one that captured the second encounter — but it had been discarded because it was considered “unnecessary”.

"There’s a scene where you greet the person as they enter and another where you pass them without greeting again. We didn’t keep the latter scene because we thought greeting once was enough."

The excuse that the second clip was “unnecessary” makes no sense. It’s like saying CCTV of someone walking past a bank is more important than footage of the same person coming back 5-10 minutes later and robbing it. In any proper investigation, the part that shows the actual wrongdoing is what matters most.

This constituted a direct admission that the most relevant part of the footage had been intentionally excluded from the record.

Hanni later revealed during her 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit testimony that she recorded this interaction.

2.3.2. The security guard showed signs of nervousness

The security guard who disclosed this appeared visibly nervous and avoided eye contact during the interaction.

"The guard reportedly couldn’t make eye contact with Hanni while explaining this and appeared nervous."

This raised further concerns that the deletion was not simply a procedural oversight but part of a conscious effort to conceal material evidence. The guard’s discomfort reinforced the suspicion that the decision to discard the footage was controversial or unethical. 

2.4. The Fabrication Was Strategic and Misleading

Taken together, the deletion of critical footage, the substitution of unrelated footage, and the false claim that a team led by Min Hee-jin had changed its position demonstrate not just internal mismanagement but a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.

“We only want to ensure that our children don’t have to go through this again. Yet, I don’t understand why they keep making up stories.”

3. HYBE management made it difficult for the victim to seek justice

Instead of helping uncover the truth, HYBE created obstacles that frustrated efforts to investigate and seek accountability.

3.1. Management seems unwilling to pursue the issue

When NewJeans' parents formally raised the matter by emailing ADOR’s board of directors. CEO Kim Joo-young’s initial reaction as passive and uncommitted.

“On June 13th, NewJeans' parents officially raised the issue by sending an email to ADOR’s board of directors. At the time, CEO Kim Joo-young’s response was lukewarm”

3.2. HYBE and Belift Lab blocked all efforts to investigate

After learning that crucial CCTV footage had been deleted, the parents proposed alternative ways to identify the manager involved in the incident. One such suggestion was to have Hanni review internal staff photos. However, HYBE and Belift Lab refused, citing privacy concerns. 

“We had to ask several times for photos of the Belift Lab managers involved, but we never received a response. They claimed that showing photos would be a human rights violation.”

This justification raises serious questions. It is unclear how an internal review conducted by a victim in a closed, non-public setting would constitute a violation of anyone’s privacy. The purpose was solely to establish the facts of a potential wrongdoing, not to expose their identityto the public.

Even when the parents revised their request to accommodate privacy sensitivities — asking only for the identity of the manager on duty at the time — the companies still failed to provide an answer

“So we asked them to at least identify the manager who was on duty at the time of the incident. However, we never received a clear answer.”

This lack of transparency prevented Hanni and her parents from verifying key facts, ultimately protecting those potentially responsible rather than supporting the victim.

3.3. ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young ignored critical witness testimony

The parents accused ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young of failing to act on new evidence and instead cooperating with Belift Lab in selectively presenting facts. 

Kim promised to re-investigate the matter when a new witness came forward. Yet, Belift Lab’s follow-up statement omitted the very details that the new testimony had helped clarify. 

“CEO Kim promised to re-investigate since a new witness had come forward. But “Belift Lab’s statement only mentions the scene where the artist greeted Hanni with a 90-degree bow, omitting the part where they passed without greeting.”

3.4. Poor communication and persistent unresponsiveness

The parents also documented their consistent efforts to engage through official communication channels, only to be met with delays, vague replies, or complete silence. This extended over a period of several months.

“I reviewed the emails we sent, and from June 13th to June 25th, July 10th, July 20th, and even through September, we have been communicating and requesting via email almost every week.”

4. ADOR new CEO Kim Joo-young refused to protect Hanni, forcing parents to speak out themselves

4.1. Kim Joo-young denied requests for a public rebuttal

NewJeans’ parents  asked ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young to issue a clear, public statement to refute Belift Lab’s inaccuracies, citing concerns about inter-label conflicts as a reason to remain silent.

“We even asked CEO Kim to release a statement from ADOR about Belift Lab’s lies, but she refused, citing concerns about conflicts between labels.”

Kim holds the dual roles of Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) of HYBE and CEO of ADOR. This presents a clear conflict of interest. Rather than prioritising the welfare of ADOR’s artists, her responses reveal that she places “inter-label harmony” — in reality, Belift Lab’s corporate interests — above Hanni’s well-being.

This illustrates that she is unfit to serve as ADOR CEO, whose primary responsibility must be to safeguard the members from bullying, slander, and harassment.

“Even if we release a statement based on the explanations given by the parents and Hanni, there’s a high chance of further rebuttals, and that would lead to a vicious cycle of back-and-forth responses.”

This excuse effectively silenced the parents’ efforts to clear Hanni’s name and correct misinformation, leaving the victim isolated and vulnerable.

4.2. Parents felt abandoned and forced to go public

Frustrated and unsupported, the parents felt they had no choice but to speak out publicly. They conveyed their sense of abandonment and desperation:

“The company refuses to fight against these lies, so where and how can we speak the truth?”

Their decision to approach Ilgan Sports on 2024-10-07 was a last resort, driven by the lack of internal resolution despite months of persistent efforts. This highlights a critical failure by ADOR’s leadership to protect their artist from damaging falsehoods.

4.3. CEO Kim criticised parents for going public despite ongoing internal efforts

After the interview with Ilgan Sports on 2024-10-07, CEO Kim expressed displeasure, accusing the parents of not consulting ADOR before speaking to the media:

“CEO Kim said she was taken aback by the interview because we didn’t consult with the company.”

However, the parents emphasised that they had made numerous attempts to engage internally with no meaningful response.

“We have been asking for a resolution for so long, and nothing has been done. That’s why we responded to the press request.”

This appears to be an attempt to silence NewJeans and their parents, discouraging them from speaking out about their experience and the mishandling of the issue. It reveals an unwillingness to accept accountability or foster open dialogue. This silencing tactic compounds the emotional toll on the parents and NewJeans, leaving them feeling marginalised and powerless.