Founded in 2015, Hope Project faced public scrutiny for a decade over its registration status.
The case has raised calls both for legal accountability and for reforms in industry practices.
Meanwhile, it forces a reexamination of how one-person agencies are regulated and enforced.
"Registration Is Not Optional": Questions from Lee Hanee's Case
Case summary
The investigation is ongoing.On December 23, 2025, the Gangnam Police Station in Seoul forwarded actor Lee Hanee, her husband Mr. Jang, and their corporation to prosecutors without detention, on suspicion of violating the Act on the Promotion of the Popular Culture and Art Industry.
The law requires companies engaging in talent management and entertainment production to register with the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and it allows criminal penalties for failure to register.
The firm began as Hanee Co., Ltd. in 2015, renamed to Ireyun in 2018, and adopted the trade name Hope Project in September 2022.
Lee served as CEO and an inside director until January 2023, after which her husband was listed as CEO and she remained an inside director.
After the unregistered status came to light in September 2025, the company obtained a registration certificate retroactively on October 28, explaining the lapse as a lack of awareness of the requirement.
However, as the investigation progressed, the matter grew into a broader public debate rather than a simple administrative oversight.
Behind a series of similar revelations across the industry are two trends: a rise in one-person agencies (small firms often run by a single artist) and uneven understanding of the registration rules.
Several other Korean entertainers, including well-known singers and actors, have faced disputes over similar issues, which suggests this is a structural problem rather than an isolated incident.
Moreover, prior reporting about tax probes and other disputes has intensified the public reaction in this case.
Legal issues
The law applies.Registration for popular culture planning businesses is a legal duty; failure to comply can lead to criminal penalties.
Under Article 26 of the Act on the Promotion of the Popular Culture and Art Industry, a corporation or a sole proprietorship with more than one person engaged in talent planning must register with the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
Operating without registration can carry up to two years in prison or a fine of up to 20,000,000 won (roughly $15,000), so there is real criminal exposure.
This case combines a decade-long unregistered operation with a subsequent retroactive registration, and investigators are focusing on whether there was deliberate avoidance.
The key legal questions are awareness at the time and proof of intent.
On the one hand, the issue can be a genuine administrative mistake born of unfamiliarity with the rules; on the other hand, systematic evasion to reduce tax or bypass regulation would point to intentional wrongdoing.
Nevertheless, the policy goals of registration are clear: protect artists, prevent unfair practices, and ensure tax and financial transparency.
Pro-enforcement position
Calls for strictness.Supporters of strict enforcement argue that the entertainment sector depends on public trust and financial integrity, so basic legal norms like registration cannot be optional.
They stress that celebrity status should not shield anyone from regulation, and that high-profile violations can undermine compliance culture across the industry.
Moreover, a ten-year failure to register is hard to view as a simple clerical error. Revenue generated during that period suggests potential tax and accounting problems, which in turn require thorough investigation.
Advocates worry that unregistered entities may hide costs or move funds opaquely, disadvantaging lawful businesses and harming artists' rights.
From a fairness perspective, noncompliant firms create an uneven playing field for small agencies and newcomers who follow the rules.
Therefore, in addition to criminal review where warranted, supporters call for systematic inspections and stronger institutional safeguards to prevent recurrence. Law enforcement must be a hard line that allows no privilege.
Finally, public investigations and penalties can have a deterrent effect and help restore trust in the system, beyond the literal text of the statute.
This position prioritizes public benefit and institutional credibility in interpreting the law.
Counterargument
Treating it as an administrative error.Critics of harsh sanctions point first to the absence of proven intent and the fact that the company completed registration on October 28, which can be read as a sign of sincerity and corrective will.
They note that many small, one-person agencies struggle with complex paperwork and that administrative mistakes are common when artists and their teams combine creative work with business operations.
These voices argue that education and administrative remedies should come before criminalization. Fines and corrective orders can teach compliance without imposing career-damaging stigma.
Moving a matter to prosecutors, they say, risks public shaming and professional harm that outweighs the public interest when the breach has been remedied.
They also raise fairness concerns: large talent companies have more resources to meet regulatory demands than a single-artist firm, so applying identical penalties risks unequal burdens.
Because many past cases have been resolved administratively, critics see criminal referral as an atypical escalation. If registration has been completed, warnings and improvement should come first.
In short, the dispute is over how to balance punishment and proportionality while keeping the law meaningful.
Social impact and concern
The ripple effects are significant.This is not merely a private moral failing; it highlights institutional weaknesses across the industry.
As more unregistered cases surface, tax authorities and investigators may expand probes, increasing uncertainty for entertainers and managers.
For a public figure like Lee, previous controversies make reputational damage more likely and potentially career-affecting.
Enforcement disparities also worry observers. Differences between how major agencies and one-person firms operate can translate into uneven outcomes when the law is applied.
Policy responses suggested include simplifying registration procedures, improving guidance, and clarifying that initial violations may be handled with corrective measures rather than immediate prosecution.
Policy recommendations
Reform is needed.First, the government should expand outreach and training for small operators, including artists who manage their own activities.
Simplified online forms, a clear checklist of core requirements, and a temporary corrective period after initial reports would reduce accidental noncompliance.
Second, a unified guide linking registration to tax and financial reporting would help operators manage both business and compliance together.
Collaboration among the Ministry of Culture, tax authorities, and local governments could provide targeted consulting and improve voluntary compliance.
Conclusion
The key point is simple.The Lee Hanee case mixes individual responsibility with institutional gaps, producing a complex public debate.
Strict accountability and a forgiving educational approach clash, but both aim at the same goal: a fair market and protection for artists.
In practice, strict enforcement should be paired with outreach and administrative reform so that the industry becomes more transparent and reliable. Balance between law and reality heals the industry.
We leave the reader with a question: what level of punishment is appropriate in cases like this?
