On November 2 of last year, Choi Han-soo, a professor at the Department of Economics and Trade at Kyungpook National University, wrote to the media. After watching the report on the analysis of the inheritance tax of his descendants after the death of the late Samsung Group chairman Lee Kun-hee on October 25th. At the time, reports such as “Lee Kun-hee’s inheritance tax of 11 trillion won, and Australia and Canada would not have paid a penny” or “how to prepare the inheritance tax of 10 trillion” were poured out.[세상읽기] The most useless worries in the world”)
The cash held by the largest chaebol in the business world was ample. Apart from the borrowed assets discovered during the Samsung Special Prosecutor’s Office in 2007, the dividend received after Lee’s fall in 2014 exceeded 1 trillion won. First of all, the family’s inheritance tax had little to do with business management. Professor Choi criticized the media as “the world’s most useless worries” and “the media’s schizophrenia” to the media who are concerned about the risk of inheritance.
The criticism was also valid in the report dealing with Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong’s intention to destroy the bribery case. As a result of MediaToday’s review of 40 media reports from January last year to the present, the article from the perspective of Lee Vice Chairman’s position was overwhelming. In particular, there were various points to criticize in general common sense, such as the consideration of the sentencing of the’compliance monitoring system’, which is the key to the trial, contrary to the purpose of the existing US system, but except for a small number of media, the report that fell into mechanical neutrality was best.
The 40 media outlets are among the top 60 media published by the ABC Association in January of 2020, excluding sports, children’s magazines, and English newspapers. The Chosun Ilbo, Dong-A Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, Maeil Economy, Korea Economy, Hankyoreh, Munhwa Ilbo, Hankook Ilbo, Kyunghyang Shinmun, Seoul Shinmun, etc.
① Neutrality of’A vs B’controversy by the Compliance Committee is best
The proposal for the compliance monitoring system of the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 1 (Judge Jung Joon-young) was controversial from the beginning. The Justice Department said that the US federal court reflects the “effective compliance system” as a sentencing criterion in corporate crime trials and applies this to the trial of Vice Chairman Lee. The judge asked Lee Kun-hee, “the 51-year-old in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1993, proclaiming’Samsung Shin Shin-young’ and overcoming the crisis with drastic innovation. What is the declaration of Lee, who turned 51 in 2019?” . This is a question unrelated to crime, such as bribery, embezzlement, and concealment of criminal proceeds.
Some of the civil society and academia protested that it was a paving stone for immediate probation. This case is the reason that the US federal court sentencing standards cannot be applied. The relevant US federal court standards were applicable to corporate crime. Vice-Chairman Lee’s bribery case was a personal crime, not an affiliate-level crime. In addition, the compliance system that had already operated’at the time of the crime’ was the target. In particular, if the CEO was involved, the sentence was increased. Criticism was possible for introducing unreasonable standards that could not be applied in the light of common sense.
At the time, the report was best based on a’special prosecutor vs. court’ type of mechanical neutrality. Only a small number of media such as the Hankyoreh and Kookmin Ilbo, “the court revealed in the’Compliance Monitoring Committee for the commutation of Lee Jae-yong’,” “The rumors of’Look at Lee Jae-yong’ turn around. He made headlines such as the growing’Samsung Compliance Committee’ controversy.’ In the case of Maeil Economic Daily and the Dong-A Ilbo, the title was for the reader to not know the loopholes of the logic of the court. “Lee Jae-yong’s court’Samsung’s promise to inspect the Compliance Committee’” (Maekyung), and “Lee Jae-yong’s court’s’compliance monitoring and strict inspection’” (Dong-a).
② Turning away from’Look at it openly’, positive lighting by the Compliance Committee
Criticism continued that the compliance system could not be reflected as a sentencing factor, but many of the 40 media ignored them. It was already on the premise of reflecting the sentencing of the compliance system, and he expressed his expectations by mainly introducing the actions of the Samsung Compliance Monitoring Committee, which was launched in February.
The e-Newspaper delivered its first meeting of the Compliance Committee on February 5, and said, “Samsung (January 9) officially established the Compliance Committee and concluded agreements with 7 affiliates and the resolution of the board of directors. I have revealed my will.” The Seoul Economic Daily said, “As it is an independent organization installed outside of Samsung, discussions have been made on the regulations of the secretariat to ensure its independence, the allowance of committee members, and the provision of travel expenses.” The meeting continued in March-April, and positive evaluations such as “strengthening communication and authenticity even in the case of the Samsung Compliance Committee and the request for evasion of the judiciary” came out steadily.
In May, when Vice Chairman Lee announced his apology to the public, he emphasized his sincerity. The Korean economy predicted that “Lee Jae-yong apologizes to the public, but it is not a direct reason for commutation, but reflection will be considered.” Money Today even wrote that “I faithfully performed the’Judge’s homework’.” “The public announcing an unconventional apology stating that’I will not hand over management rights to my children’ has come out, and it is analyzed that the judiciary provided a clear justification for lowering the sentencing in relation to the Gukjeong Nongdan case in the legal world.”
Democratic Party lawmaker Park Yong-jin immediately criticized, “It is not a proper attitude to apologize for replacing legal errors with moral issues.” He also said, “It is our responsibility to resolve the social controversy over Samsung’s management rights that are currently neglected, such as the issue of privatization of public interest corporations through the Samsung Life Insurance Public Interest Foundation, and the disposition of Samsung Life’s excess of Samsung Electronics’ legal limits.” The late Chairman Lee Kun-hee promised to pay taxes and return to society after a special investigation into the slush fund for Samsung borrowed accounts in 2008, but it was not kept. The Hankyoreh and Kyunghyang Shinmun are the media that reflect this on the paper.
③ Unverified press release “We hope that 60% of the people will be elected”
Articles citing data from Global Big Data Research Center in April and June were also problematic. In April, “Lee Jae-yong’s number 1 related word is’Corona’… Reports such as’Crisis Breakthrough’ rather than netizen’trial’?” (JoongAng Ilbo) came out. As a result of the research center’s analysis of words related to Vice Chairman Lee from January 26 to April 25,’Corona 19′ was overwhelming with a total of 23,145 cases, and’Seoul’ was second, and management and industry ranked third and fourth respectively. It is the content that it occupied. ‘Trial’,’Gukjeong Nongdan’ and’Special Prosecutor’, etc. did not rank in the top 30. “It reflects the public’s hope that the semiconductor industry led by Samsung Electronics will continue to grow and help overcome the corona crisis.”
Similar reports were poured out in June. As a result of analyzing public opinion by the same research institute using a similar technique, it is reported that “60% of the people gave preemptive opinions.” It was dictated by over 80 media. The fact-checker media newstop verified this as “a crappy analysis.” Facebook, YouTube, etc. do not provide as much data as possible for big data analysis due to personal information issues, but the institute said that they used it for analysis. The disclosed methodology was also unclear, making it difficult to analyze sampling errors or bias problems, and there were also problems that were randomly classified as positive or negative without looking at the context in which the vocabulary was used. Ji Yoon-sung fact checker said, “It’s almost like a scam to the people.”
④ Focusing on Jaeyong Lee’s actions from June to December, sometimes’Yongbieocheonga’
From June to December, an exaggeration was followed by linking Vice Chairman Lee’s legal responsibilities to a business crisis and then to the national economic crisis. At the same time, reports steadily came out that shed light on Lee’s management actions. June “’It’s a long way to go, don’t get tired’… Lee Jae-yong’s’K-chip wide walk’” (Korea Economic Daily), July “Lee Jae-yong’s 14th’Strong March’ this year… The bad news of judicial risk still remains” (Asian Economy), October “It seems like a local employee… Lee Jae-yong” (Chosun Ilbo) who visited a cell phone factory in Vietnam.
Many media repeatedly attacked the legitimacy of the judicial process by repeating the frame that prosecution investigations and trials hinder Samsung Electronics’ development. In August, Seoul Economic Daily reported that “Samsung is in desperate need for attack management … investigation → prosecution → trial,’Mobius strip’ trapped,” or “‘the rivals are chasing’ …’ Lee Jae-yong prosecution for 4 years.” . The Munhwa Ilbo in August, “Samsung suffers from’檢 risk’… “If it’s another company, it’s already ruined.”
In September, the Herald Economy also said, “The’total blank’ crisis has come again… He said that it could be a “judgment risk” that implicates management. “It could be a pressure on all-round management amid ongoing crises such as the Corona 19, trade conflict between the US and China, and the war for supremacy in semiconductors.” Financial News reported that when Vice Chairman Lee was charged with fraudulent accounting in September, “The investigation took 1 year and 7 months, and after the Investigation Review Committee’s recommendation came out, the prosecution was finally decided after two more months. “A day is a day when the blood is dry for businessmen,” he wrote. It is an editorial saying, “Lee Jae-yong is finally prosecuted, so will it taste like a business.”
Samsung Electronics already announced its provisional results in the second quarter of July, saying that it had sales of 52 trillion won and operating profit of 8 trillion won. Compared to the same period of last year, the profits of the households increased by 22.73% from 6,233.2 billion won. Compared to the first quarter, sales fell 6.02%, but operating profit increased 25.58%. According to a public announcement at the beginning of this year, it was tentatively counted that Samsung Electronics raised sales of 23.62 trillion won and operating profit of 35.95 trillion won last year. From 2019, sales rose 2.54% and operating profit rose 29.46%.
⑤ December “Affirmative evaluation of the Compliance Committee” watering
In December, as the decision to farewell to the destruction came to an end, a distorted report came out. There is a report of a professional judge evaluating the activities of the Compliance Committee. Three members, including accountant Hong Soon-tak on the special prosecutor’s side, former Constitutional Judge Kang Il-won on the court side, and Kim Kyung-soo, attorney on Samsung’s side, made the evaluation, and the Seoul High Court released it on the court’s website. In the full text, all of the two members except the Samsung member rated the effectiveness and sustainability low. In particular, it was considered that the ability to monitor the total number of companies and the succession of management rights was insufficient.
Reports on the Economic and Conservative Papers were different from the report. “Kang Il-won’Samsung Compliance Committee Sustainability Positive’” (Maeil Economy), “’Samsung Compliance Monitoring Committee, Sustainability Positive”… Lee Jae-yong, will the sentence be commuted?” (Financial News), “Kang Il-won designated by the Ministry of Justice,’sustainability positive’” (Munhwa Ilbo), “Affirmative evaluation from the Samsung Compliance Committee,’Structural Advancement-Sustainability’” (e-Newspaper).
On December 16, two days before the release of the report, about 30 media including Newsis released similar reports. Among the 18 detailed evaluation criteria set by the expert panel of judges, former judge Kang said, “The positive evaluation was twice the negative,” saying, “10 positive, two neutral, and six negative evaluations.” It was even evaluated that attorney Kang gave a’passing point’ to the committee’s activities or that the Samsung Group laid the foundation for compliance management.
However, the article was the same as the reference material for 3,800 women distributed by the Samsung Electronics PR team to reporters of the Ministry of Industry at the time.
⑥ Reported a petition for “the national economic hub, different opportunities”
From about the 15th,’reports of petitions’ poured out. It is an article that business officials are filing a petition with the court for preemption against Lee. On the 15th, the Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry revealed that Chairman Park Yong-man filed a petition against the Seoul High Court, and related reports were concentrated. Ahn Kun-jun, the head of the Venture Business Association, filed a similar petition to the court on the 13th. It is the content that appeals for a probation of execution, saying,’Vice-Chairman Lee serves as the backbone of the Korean economy’.
In a Hankyoreh column last September, Kwak Jeong-soo, an editorial writer for the Hankyoreh, said, “It is completely behind the scenes that the Supreme Court confirmed that the US War Office led the merger and bribed former President Park Geun-hye for the management succession of Vice Chairman Lee. (Fundamental Accounting Case) A large amount of internal data supporting the suspicion in the seizure search was poured out. “However, the Samsung crisis in which’Jaeyong Lee (illegal succession) risk’ is the essence of’judicial risk’ is misleading. This is not what the media would do,” he criticized.
Editorial Writer Kwak stated that the essence of the matter was “a’karma’ of Korean society that (prosecutors and courts) have consistently overlooked the succession of Samsung’s illegal management rights over the past 20 years. The Korean economy will not be greatly shaken, and even if there is such a risk, there is no choice but to take it.”
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.