They then raised allegations of verbal abuse, personal errands, and possible illegal injections.
Investigations are focusing on suspected medical law violations and aggravated injury charges.
Park Narae announced a pause in her broadcasting activities and offered explanations, but the public dispute continues.
“Where does workplace abuse stop and illegal medical practice begin?”
Case overview
The core issue is alleged workplace bullying.
In early December 2025, former managers submitted an asset-seizure petition to the Seoul Western District Court, which pushed the matter into public view.
The managers said they were ordered to do work beyond normal duties—fetch snacks, clean up after parties, endure pressured drinking, and remain on call 24 hours—and described those orders as abuse. They also claimed verbal assaults, aggravated injuries, and unpaid event fees.
At the same time, allegations emerged that a non-medical person performed injections and IVs, moving the dispute from a labor conflict into a potential criminal matter under medical law.
What could have stayed an internal entertainment-industry matter rapidly attracted public attention because of the seizure filing.
Meanwhile, social media posts and released messages intensified the controversy.
The combination of images and messages strengthened the public narrative.
However, the legal effect of that material and the interpretation of testimonies will be determined through investigation and any trial.
Timeline and investigation status
Public dates show the sequence of events.
On December 3 a seizure petition was filed; on December 5 a formal complaint was received; on December 8 Park announced a halt to broadcasts; and on December 12 messages allegedly forcing proxy prescriptions were made public.
Gangnam Police Station logged suspected violations of the medical law and aggravated injury and assigned the matter to its criminal division. People under scrutiny include the principal, her mother, an unnamed medical practitioner, former managers, and the talent agency corporate entity.
During the probe, issues such as deleted social media posts, accompanying someone overseas, and messages asking people to stay quiet emerged as investigative leads.
Investigators are checking the validity of any foreign medical license used, who actually administered injections or IVs, whether proxy prescriptions were coerced, and the nature of the alleged aggravated injuries.
At the same time, mutual lawsuits have been filed, raising the possibility of a prolonged legal battle.
Legal issues — medical law and labor law
The central question is which laws apply and how.
Medical law forbids unlicensed people from performing medical acts. This rule applies to foreigners too: a foreign medical license does not automatically authorize practice in Korea.
Even if someone holds a license abroad, performing treatments or administering drugs in Korea can be evaluated as illegal. Messages that allegedly forced proxy prescriptions can also trigger pharmacy law issues, possible coercion charges, and criminal penalties for abusing power in a workplace.
From a labor-law perspective, failure to register employees for the four major social insurances (national pension, health insurance, employment insurance, workers' compensation), lack of written contracts, and unclear work hours and breaks could violate labor standards.
In short, the case intersects medical law, pharmacy law, criminal statutes (aggravated injury and coercion), and labor law.
Courts and investigators will weigh each legal provision against available evidence and surrounding circumstances before reaching conclusions.
Park Narae's side (defense)
Park's camp says the accusations are misunderstandings and false.
Her representatives say the person giving injections was believed to be a licensed doctor, and that a house-call (medical visit) was requested—there was no intent to arrange illegal medical treatment.
They also suggest the former managers may be inflating claims to seek financial gain and say they are preparing counterclaims for extortion.
Three core defenses appear: first, personal requests by a celebrity and staff accompaniment are common workplace practices; second, there may not have been a clear opportunity to verify an outsider's credentials in advance; and third, some allegations might be exaggerated or late claims.
From this view, the matter can be read as an unfortunate mix of informal industry practice and mistaken judgment.
However, this defense has limits. A misidentification of medical credentials is not always a harmless error—medical acts affect bodies and health and can carry criminal consequences. Labor issues such as social insurance enrollment and written contracts cannot be resolved simply by calling an incident a private mistake.
Still, Park's side argues that if investigators accept their explanations, the case could end as a misunderstanding or procedural lapse, potentially reducing or removing criminal responsibility.
Former managers' claims (criticism)
The former managers describe harm and unfair treatment.
The former managers provide detailed examples, messages, and seizure-petition documents to argue that the mistreatment was repetitive and structural rather than isolated.
They say personal tasks like preparing snacks or cleaning up after parties were habitual, accompanied by verbal abuse and threatening language that caused psychological trauma. They also point to missing social insurance enrollment and absent written contracts as violations of basic labor rights—problems that cannot be excused by industry custom.
The illegal-medical-practice allegation is another serious pillar of their claim. According to the managers, the person nicknamed the "injection aunt" directly handled the principal's physical condition on set—administering IVs and injections.
Publishing messages that appear to force proxy prescriptions suggests systematic use of pressure: offering drugs as leverage to limit personal freedom or to coerce job performance.
This critical perspective argues the issue goes beyond mistake or procedure: unlicensed medical acts can cause immediate bodily harm and, if severe, lead to criminal penalties. Combined with labor-rights violations, victims can suffer long-term social and economic harm. Moreover, a celebrity's power can undermine standard employment safeguards and safety measures.
Therefore, critics say the matter should be treated as structural, not personal, and that legal and social accountability should follow. If this view gains traction, calls will grow for industry reforms and stricter controls on nonprofessional medical practices.
Social significance and cultural context
This controversy goes beyond a private scandal.
For example, failing to enroll workers in the four major social insurances (national pension, health insurance, employment insurance, workers' compensation) leads to losses beyond short-term wages—missing retirement pay, pension benefits, and insurance protections. That directly undermines a person's long-term financial safety net. Also, nonprofessionals performing medical procedures raises the risk of medical accidents and damages public trust in healthcare.
Thus, this case could prompt stronger public oversight of industry practices, better protection for entertainment workers, and clearer safeguards around medical safety.
Comparative cases and international perspective
Similar incidents have occurred abroad.
In other countries, celebrity power abuse and unlicensed medical acts have surfaced as problems. Where licensing systems and jurisdictional rules are clear, investigations and penalties tend to be faster. Where regulation is lax or cultural practice overrides formal rules, harm is more easily hidden.
In Korea, medical and pharmacy laws are strict on paper, but informal, private services have sometimes been tolerated in practice—this controversy reveals that gap.
International comparison points to possible reforms: tighten rules for foreign medical practitioners operating domestically, strengthen labor protections for entertainment-industry workers, and build rapid relief systems for victims of workplace abuse or unsafe medical practices.
Conclusion
The heart of the matter is responsibility and trust.
This controversy exposes both personal accountability and gaps in institutional safety nets.
Legal determinations will rest on evidence and testimony, so the investigative and judicial processes must clarify the facts. Meanwhile, public debate should wait for the courts but also pursue reforms in labor practices and medical safety.
Ultimately, the case forces a reckoning with power structures inside the entertainment industry and with informal medical practices.
What judgment will you reach?
