Q: We're curious about the current progress of the case. Who was accused? When was the complaint filed? What does the verdict say?
A: Big Hit had commissioned advertising and publicity services to the perpetrator, Mr. N, 2 years ago. However, it ended as a one-time project without any significant results. Mr. N threatened Big Hit's CEO in early 2017, claiming to possess 'inappropriate marketing materials' and threatening to 'expose them on social media if payment was not made.' As stated in the verdict, knowing well that mere threats can tarnish an image in the entertainment industry, the CEO attempted to resolve the issue directly. However, the CEO realized that this matter couldn't be resolved individually and brought it up to the company. Big Hit then proceeded to report the whole situation to the police. Mr. N eventually was sentenced to one year in prison for violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and Fraud on August 31, 2017.
Q: According to the verdict, the perpetrator allegedly made threats using Big Hit's alleged deceptive marketing as a pretext. Can you elaborate?
A: Big Hit is audited by one of the four major accounting firms. At the time, all related advertising and publicity costs went through legitimate accounting processes, so the perpetrator's accusations were baseless. The term 'deceptive marketing' is used to describe twisting regular online marketing into something malicious.
Q: How severe were the threats made by the perpetrator? What prompted Big Hit's decision to file charges?
A: Mr. N went as far as creating a fake identity and committing fraud. He claimed to be a victim too and repeatedly threatened Big Hit's CEO through emails and calls. As stated in the verdict, he demanded 330 M KRW, but his threats had nothing to do with the company's advertising deals. Therefore, Big Hit reported the matter to the police and an investigation began. Big Hit has been transparent about the matter, informing the authorities, and cooperating fully with the investigation. The CEO also took personal steps to lessen the impact on the artist's reputation.
-They said access to the verdict has been available since 2019, but this article is from 2017?
-Why mention a 2017 article?
-Guess they didn't expect the verdict to be accessible.
-No explanation or apology, just the old stuff keeps coming up.
-So, they just brushed it off like this back in 2017.
-It's really disappointing.
-They're being cornered by accusations of chart manipulation right now.
-Fabricated propagandaㅋㅋㅋㅋ
.jpeg)
