Min Hee-jin, accused by Hive, guilty of breach of trust? The issue is whether or not to undertake a ‘act of betrayal’ that will cause damage – Seoul Shinmun VRESP

“There is no real loss due to the share structure.”
There is also the claim that “punishment is imposed when maritime acts are proven.”

As the management conflict between Hive, Korea’s largest music agency, and Min Hee-jin, CEO of Adore, the subsidiary that developed New Genes, has escalated into a high-profile case, attention is also focused on the legal issues that will determine the direction of the investigation. The general consensus in the legal community is that in order to establish a charge of breach of trust on behalf of CEO Min, evidence is needed to support specific actions that harmed Adore.

According to the police on the 28th, Hive filed a complaint against CEO Min and his close associate, Deputy CEO A, to Yongsan Police Station in Seoul on the 26th on charges of breach of trust. Hive claims that CEO Min and others made plans to seize management rights and contacted external investors, and that there were messenger conversations such as ‘we will turn Adore into an empty shell and take it out’. Representative Min held an emergency press conference on the 25th and refuted, “We never planned, intended or executed the usurpation of management rights.”

The most important part is whether a plan to harm the company was made and actually implemented. Professional breach of trust is not punishable at the preliminary or conspiracy stage. ‘Initiation or commencement of execution’ is required. If there is evidence that you ‘understood’ an act that would harm the company, you can be criminally punished for attempted breach of duty even if you failed.

Attorney Park Hoon said, “CEO Min should have thought, ‘I’m going to take Newgenes,’ and then taken the next step,” adding, “The content of the messenger conversation they simulated with each other alone cannot be considered a specific action.” Attorney Lee Hyeon-gon, a former family court judge, posted on his Facebook page, “If KakaoTalk data is the most conclusive evidence, Hive has failed (in proving the charge of breach of trust).” Also, referring to the KakaoTalk conversation in which Hive Chairman Bang Si-hyuk said, ‘You can step on Espa,’ he said, “I don’t know what the difference is between this and conclusive evidence that (Chairman Bang) is suspected of instigating Espa’s assault.”

A lawyer who used to be a chief judge pointed out, “To change Adore’s shareholding and voting rights ratio, you have to go through a general shareholders’ meeting, but if Hive, the majority shareholder, is ‘opposed’, it cannot pass, so there is no real loss to the (company).” Currently, Hive owns 80% of Adore’s shares.

However, a lawyer specializing in the entertainment industry said, “Unlike embezzlement, breach of trust is, to put it simply, a general punishment for ‘betrayal’ of the company’s interests by a person performing another person’s affairs.” He carefully diagnosed, “If various acts of ‘working’ for the purpose are revealed, it could be a breach of trust.” There is also an analysis that if it is true that CEO Min leaked the contract to the outside world for the purpose of attracting investors, the possibility of criminal punishment is open.

Reporter Park Sang-yeon