Min Kyung-cheol argues that removing NewJeans from Adore would cause substantial harm to the company, and that such an act could amount to embezzlement if orchestrated by Adore’s former CEO. The police previously cleared the embezzlement accusations, but the court has acknowledged the evidentiary value of Min’s KakaoTalk messages, turning the case into a high-stakes narrative. Investigators are expected to probe what actions were taken to separate NewJeans from Adore, with potential charges depending on the evidence.

In a newly released video, lawyer Min argued that fiduciary breach is one of the most challenging offenses to prove. He noted that when the alleged victims are listed as Bang Shi-hyuk or HYBE, the case can be difficult to establish under a shareholders’ agreement. Yet, he contended, the situation changes when Adore is viewed as the victim, saying Min Jeon (the former Adore CEO) used HYBE to sell shares and to pull NewJeans out of Adore. He asserted that removing NewJeans from Adore would inflict immense damage on the company and that, if orchestrated by a former Adore director, it could amount to embezzlement.

Earlier, police had cleared Min from embezzlement charges. Min’s lawyer countered that the landscape has shifted, telling audiences that the court has acknowledged the evidentiary value of Min’s KakaoTalk messages, and that the unfolding storyline is turning into something akin to a morning drama, with scenes where one wonders how such lies could be exposed so quickly.

He also remarked that evidence is now pouring out, and investigators will probe what actions Min took to separate NewJeans from Adore. If clear circumstances emerge from the inquiry, Min’s embezzlement charge could be recognized.

Background context shows that NewJeans had previously terminated its exclusive contract with Adore for breach of contract, a decision later contested in court. The court ruled the contract between Adore and the members remained valid, and while NewJeans signaled an intention to appeal, some members reportedly returned to Adore after the appeal deadline neared. Adore stated that it was examining the matter and its implications.

Notes:
– The English version preserves the core quotes and facts from the extracted Korean sentences while ensuring natural, journalistic English style.
– The piece avoids translating or introducing aught beyond what is directly supported by the extracted statements.
– All bylines, sources, and contact information have been omitted in line with the rules.
– Paragraphs are kept concise (2–4 sentences per paragraph) to enhance readability.