Park Geun-hye’s Justice Department “solicited the use of presidential authority to succeed in management rights”
Source photo.” alt=”Lee Jae-yong, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics. <한겨레> Base photo.” />
Jaeyong Lee, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics. Material photo.
After the sentence of reconsideration by former President Park Geun-hye on the 14th, it was finally confirmed by judicial judgment that 8.6 billion won by Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong to former President Park and Choi Seo-won (previously renamed Choi Soon-sil) was a bribe. However, Vice-Chairman Lee, who is about to be sentenced to return for revocation on the 18th, denies the purpose of the Supreme Court’s ruling for bribery and appeals for preemption. At the hearing of the 1st Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Jun-Young Chung) on the 30th of last month, Vice-Chairman Lee requested a commutation to the court. It was a’passive’ support by request, and △he claimed that he had never requested an illegal or unfair job execution, and △there was no fact that he received any privileges. In addition, he said, “The succession operation itself is not illegal,” he said, even regarding the succession of management rights, which was regarded as the price of bribery as a’victim’ of ex-president Park’s abuse of authority. However, this argument goes against the Supreme Court ruling that convicted former President Park and Mr. Choi. In the case of Mr. Choi, the Supreme Court judged, “After Lee Jae-yong decided to actively respond to the president’s request, in July 2015, he instructed Choi Ji-sung, Jang Choong-ki, and Park Sang-jin to faithfully implement all the President’s wishes.” In the ruling of former President Park, which was confirmed on the day, “(Samsung’s) Gifted and Talented Center support is sufficient to raise doubts about the fairness of the presidential duties. Samsung, the sponsoring position, showed a rush to support the gifted center, and unconditionally paid the amount of support requested by the defendant.” It is judged that Vice Chairman Lee also actively offered bribes. Park Young-soo’s special inspection team also argues, “Even if it is a’request-type bribery’, if the donor is seeking mutual win-win by’pipping up’ the bribe request, it should be regarded as an active and active bribe.” Regarding Vice-Chairman Lee’s assertion that’the President has never requested illegal or unfair execution of duties’, the ruling of former President Park said, “The request to use the president’s authority to help a certain group of large corporations succeed in management rights is itself a social norm. It is against the principle of good faith.” It stated the injustice of the request for help in the succession of management rights. According to the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is not possible to commute the sentence for Vice-Chairman Lee, but it is a weighting factor as it falls under the case of’active proof’ and’in case the requested content is related to illegal or illegal business execution.’ The special prosecutor criticized that “Vice-Chairman Lee intentionally misreads the Supreme Court decision or is directly against the purpose of the decision.” However, an attorney on the side of Vice Chairman Lee said, “(Recognized by the Supreme Court), the implied and unjust solicitation by Vice Chairman Lee does not mean the illegality of the content of the solicitation.” He said, “I haven’t seen any benefits such as succession work through the president’s job execution.” By Jang Ye-ji, staff reporter [email protected]