[팍스넷뉴스 김동희 산업부장] The court’s judgment on the Samsung Compliance Committee was cold. While acknowledging institutional limitations and tight schedules, he pointed out that they are not much different from the previous compliance system.
In a word, I failed. Although the effort is hypothesized, it is evaluated that it was not innovative and unconventional enough to give indulgence.
After the Supreme Court decided to abandon the Gukjeong Nongdan case and return to it, Samsung and Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong had hopeful expectations. The Seoul High Court Criminal Division 1 (Deputy Judge Jung Joon-young) ordered Samsung’s countermeasures to prevent the recurrence of crime, and Samsung and Vice-Chairman Lee Jae-yong proposed the Compliance Committee as a solution and immediately took action. An independent committee was formed, centered on external experts such as former Supreme Justice Kim Ji-hyung, to look for violations of the compliance obligations of the top executives of Samsung affiliates.
As the court’s forward-looking attitude and Samsung’s immediate response made a collaboration, Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong expected to avoid imprisonment. The legal community also showed more interest in the probation period to be decided by the court than in the old prosecutor Park Young-soo (9 years).
The results were not as expected.
The court questioned the effectiveness of the Samsung Compliance Committee, citing the report evaluated by the expert hearing committee. It was evaluated that the committee did not have a device to check the organization of the control tower of Samsung with group owner Jae-yong Lee, vice chairman. It was also concluded that it was not possible to prevent or monitor illegal acts and new types of illegal acts of companies other than the seven companies that signed the agreement.
There was no consideration of sentencing. Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong was sentenced to two years and six months in prison and was imprisoned in court. On February 5, 2018, he was sentenced to probation, and after three years of release, he continued to operate in prison.
Respect the judgment of the court. I don’t even want to say anything about the results. But the question remains. What answers did the court expect? Maybe in the first place they ordered a very strict self-inspection system that companies could not afford.
That is why this ruling is more felt as treachery. In particular, it is difficult to accept the criticism that vice-chairman Lee Jae-yong’s sincerity to prevent the recurrence of political power-type crimes could be read, but that the institutional system was not supported. It would have been nice if I said that I couldn’t find authenticity…
The aftertaste is not refreshing whether the legal profession was at least trying to take advantage of the desperate efforts of Samsung and Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, who tried to prevent imprisonment.
ⒸLook at the market with new eyes. Unauthorized distribution of Paxnet News is prohibited