Special Prosecutors’ Team Park Young-soo imprisoned Lee Jae-yong for nine years in prison in a farewell trial to destroy the bribery case by Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong. He emphasized that the bribery and embezzlement amount was only 8.6 billion won, and that the crime of bribery was turned into a normal transaction. Samsung said that Vice Chairman Lee was close to the victim of abuse of the presidential authority and insisted on probation.
At a decision trial held at the hearing of the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 1 (Judge Jung Joon-young) on the 30th, a special prosecutor sought 9 years in prison for Lee, who was charged with bribery, embezzlement, concealment of criminal proceeds, and perjury. It has been about four years since the trial in this case began in February 2017, and one year and three months after the destruction and return trial began.
Choi Ji-sung, former head of the Future Strategy Office, former deputy chief of the Future Strategy Office, Jang Choong-ki, and former Samsung Electronics president Sang-jin Park were sentenced to seven years in prison, and Hwang Sung-soo, former executive director of Samsung Electronics, to five years in prison. The special prosecutor also announced that the Supreme Court would confiscate the word’Raushing’, which was recognized as a bribe, from Vice Chairman Lee. Laushing is the high price of 700 million won that Samsung delivered to Choi Seo-won’s daughter, Jeong Yu-ra, in 2016.
The issue of deliberation for destruction and repatriation is the sentence. The special prosecutor and Samsung quarreled in a sentence after accepting the factual judgment of the Supreme Court’s decision in August last year. The Supreme Court admitted a total of 8.6 billion won as bribes, including the service cost of the company owned by Choi Seo-won (36.34 billion won), three horses passed over to Jeong (34 billion won), and sponsorship of the Korea Winter Sports Gifted Center (1.6 billion won).
The Supreme Court saw that there was an unjust solicitation that Vice Chairman Lee would bribe the president and get help in the succession of Samsung Group’s management rights at the time. At that time, he thought that the succession of management was the biggest issue of the Samsung Group, and that the Blue House and the government’s help in this regard was the price of bribe Lee, and that an’implicit request’ was established between Vice Chairman Lee and the President.
“Bribery and embezzlement ‘8 billion won’, there is no probation for execution”
The special prosecutor saw that the range of the sentence recommended for Vice Chairman Lee was 5 to 16 years in prison. This is the reason that both the core crimes, embezzlement and bribery, have more elements of sentence weighting than those of reduction. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s sentencing criteria, the range of imprisonment for embezzlement was calculated from 5 to 12 years imprisonment, 3 years in prison for bribery, and August in imprisonment for perjury, and the recommended sentence range was summed up from 5 years to 16 years in prison.
In the case of embezzlement, the special prosecutor said, “(Regarding the 2015 merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries), a large number of victims, including Samsung C&T shareholders and members of the National Pension Service, were not recovered. It is a crime that intentionally conceals the proceeds of a crime, has a bad criminal offense, and is aimed at strengthening control or preserving its position within a company. After the crime, he also tried to conceal the evidence,” he said, adding that seven weighting factors were applied.
On the other hand, there are only three factors for reduction, he said, “a significant part of the damage has been recovered (reimbursed), the accused seriously reflects, and there is no history of criminal punishment.” Even Lee said, “Because it was unfavorable to the trial, the amount of damage was urgently reimbursed for use of cotton.” .
The same is true of the penalties related to bribery. The special prosecutor believes that Vice Chairman Lee actively bribed the president in exchange for support in the succession of management rights. He argued that the content of the solicitation was illegal and related to illegal business execution, and that there were only four weighting factors, such as teaching the commanders (executives), while the reduction factors were only two points:’serious reflection’ and’no history of criminal punishment’.
“The Compliance Committee? It doesn’t mean anything more than’I made a new utensil’”
The special prosecution against the Samsung Compliance Monitoring Committee, which the court said to reflect as a sentencing factor, refuted that the effectiveness of the special prosecution had not been proven. “The criterion for recognition of sentencing factors is that the effectiveness of’the total number of chaebols is scared’ is the criterion.” This is the reason that the present situation does not mean more than having a new compliance monitoring system.
The special prosecutor said, “According to the hearing standards, the evaluations of the three professional judges designated by the court are all negative. In particular, sufficient verification has not been conducted for the hearing committee to empirically confirm the compliance committee, and this is recognized by the three members. The evaluation results also have limitations, such as disagreements.”
(Related article: Samsung Compliance Committee, which has become a’stuck stone’ in criminal trials)
Regarding the Special Prosecutor’s Office, “The President and Vice-Chairman Lee are mutually’win-win’. Vice-Chairman Lee’s assertion that he was unilaterally forced by the President is not true. “The succession work aims to strengthen the control of major subsidiaries of the Samsung Group – qualitatively and qualitatively by Vice-Chairman Lee with minimum personal funds. He said, “A medium sentence is inevitable in that he received the convenience of the president through illegal and unfair methods.”
Samsung “The essence of this case is’Abuse of the President’s authority,’ proper probation”
Samsung’s lawyers insisted on probation. Vice-Chairman Lee’s bribery was “passive bribery,” and said, “The essence of this case is the illegal support of companies in the abuse of the presidential authority who requested bribes.” Passive bribery is a mitigating factor in the sentencing criteria. The lawyers said, “The fact that the President strongly rebuked Lee and requested support is written in the prosecution, and the President’s active demand was recognized in the bribery trial of Mr. Choi Seo-won.” The argument that Vice Chairman Lee is a victim of the presidential bribery has been a logic since the first trial.
The range of sentence recommended by Vice-Chairman Lee, which Samsung claims, is from two years to six years in prison. In the case of bribery, which is the core allegation, the sentence was recommended for 2-3 years in prison, so the probation was appropriate or reasonable. It is a position that it is recommended to suspend execution for embezzlement, from two to five years in prison, and for perjury that violates the National Assembly Appraisal Act.
Samsung said, “There was no unreasonable solicitation and no privileges were received.” It is argued that the succession of management rights is not illegal, but is merely a reorganization of reinforcement of the majority shareholders’ control, and there are also interests of affiliates. The lawyer said, “Even in the Supreme Court or Mr. Choi’s ruling, the succession work is not fixed in nature, but must be socially and institutionally fluid. It is fluid, abstract, and variable, so no matter what solicitation is made, specific job execution cannot be specified.”
He explained that the investment in the bio industry and the transition to Samsung Life Insurance’s financial holding company, which the special prosecution pointed to as an illegal solicitation, were “common demands of the business community” or “just to create a system to strengthen the defense of management rights.” Pointing out that a large number of victims occurred due to the merger of Samsung C&T, he refuted that this could not be applied in this case, saying, “This is the case when the stock price collapses, causes a chain bankruptcy, and most of the victims lose their property or cause enormous damage to workers and creditors.”
It also argued that the operation of the Samsung Compliance Committee should be actively reflected in the sentencing factor. The lawyers said, “The special prosecutor is said to be a show-type, but it is unfounded, but the chairman and committee members were also criticized or at least neutral to Samsung. “It is a breakthrough change that an external organization with many critics controls compliance with Samsung, and none of the key executives are not afraid of the compliance agency.” “What can be supplemented has already been made up and will continue to take action in the future,” he explained, pointing out the limitations of the expert judges.
Why do you say’nationality”industrial competitiveness”Lee Kun-hee dies’ in bribery trial
Vice-Chairman Lee said several times in his final pleading, “It will be different in the future.” He said, “I always spent a day in a sense of crisis while seeing a decades-old global European company collapsing for a moment and a Japanese company growing in a terrifying momentum.” “In the meantime, in May 2014, Chairman Kun-hee Lee suddenly collapsed. In the midst of being absent, there was a single stand with the president. If it was now, I would never have dealt with it like that.”
Vice-Chairman Lee said to the court that recommended the establishment of the Compliance Committee, “I did more than just proceeding with the trial. “What role Samsung should play in our society, how to develop a compliance culture, and what kind of entrepreneur Lee Jae-yong should become,” he said. He said, “I feel the change in compliance management myself,” and asked and asked about sensitive matters such as whether the legal team review has been completed and whether this issue should be viewed by the Compliance Committee. There will never be a return to the past. Please watch.”
The existence of the late Chairman Lee Kun-hee was mentioned four times. Vice-Chairman Lee said about his memorial address at the ceremony for the ceremony of the late Chairman Lee in October, saying, “We couldn’t find an example of Lee Kun-hee, who took over the company from the predecessors and raised Samsung as it is now. He said, “It is true filial piety to surpass my father, and it is the best filial piety to grow bigger and stronger than our predecessors,” he said. “As a son who lost his father recently, I would like to filial piety to a father who respects a lot by making Samsung suited to his nationality.”
Vice-Chairman Lee also said, “We humbly accept the many criticisms poured out on Samsung. Samsung will be different. It will change from me,” he said, “I will focus on contributing to society, boldly correcting the point that was pointed out as a chaebol, and focusing on projects that we can do well.”
The sentence will be held at 2 pm on the 18th of next month at the middle court of the Seoul Court Complex Building 312, where the Seoul High Court is located.
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.