A former prosecutor-turned-lawyer argues that embezzlement could apply to Min Hee-jin, the former head of ADOR, amid claims she sought to pull NewJeans from the agency. He contends that if the actions were orchestrated by someone who served as a director at ADOR, they could meet the criteria for embezzlement. He further stated that Min Hee-jin’s alleged acts to remove NewJeans from ADOR are highly likely to be recognized as embezzlement based on the available evidence.

He described two possible acts: facilitating Hybe’s sale of shares and removing NewJeans from ADOR. The first action is argued to be difficult to frame as embezzlement because it involves a shareholder agreement. By contrast, removing NewJeans from ADOR is argued to cause significant harm to the company. If NewJeans’ departure ends the exclusive contract, ADOR could lose potential compensation, complicating the assessment of damages.

The analyst suggested that, even if NewJeans exit, if a commensurate value is credited to ADOR in the process, it might not necessarily be deemed harm. He emphasized that if Min Hee-jin intentionally sought to remove NewJeans from ADOR, such actions could be strongly supported by the evidence and potentially establish embezzlement.

Note: The above translations are crafted to reflect the referenced statements in a natural English journalistic style while preserving the original meaning and without introducing new facts.