Search Results
7/24/2025, 10:07:54 AM
>The NewJeans members' side each conducted a 30-minute presentation to make their arguments. Before the substantive arguments began, the NewJeans members' side requested the court, "We have no issue with submitting illegally obtained evidence to the court, but we ask that it not be mentioned during the public trial process."
>After the court accepted this request, during the subsequent arguments, when ADOR's side mentioned a KakaoTalk conversation between former CEO Min Hee-jin and an acquaintance, in which she said, "We’re taking (NewJeans) after three years," the members' side objected, stating, "We repeatedly asked that such evidence not be presented in open court, yet it is being intentionally disclosed in a public trial."
>However, the court responded, "I know about it, so how could the reporters not know?" Despite this, the members' side continued to protest. The court then dismissed their objections, saying, "How can you interrupt the argument process like this? Please refrain. The allegations of taking [NewJeans] are something we’ve all heard before."
Humiliation ritual
>After the court accepted this request, during the subsequent arguments, when ADOR's side mentioned a KakaoTalk conversation between former CEO Min Hee-jin and an acquaintance, in which she said, "We’re taking (NewJeans) after three years," the members' side objected, stating, "We repeatedly asked that such evidence not be presented in open court, yet it is being intentionally disclosed in a public trial."
>However, the court responded, "I know about it, so how could the reporters not know?" Despite this, the members' side continued to protest. The court then dismissed their objections, saying, "How can you interrupt the argument process like this? Please refrain. The allegations of taking [NewJeans] are something we’ve all heard before."
Humiliation ritual
Page 1