 |
|
| ▲ Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, who was accused of bribing former President Park Geun-hye and Choi Seo-won, is present at the destructive and repatriation hearing held at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the afternoon of the 18th. | |
| Ⓒ Yoo Seongho |
See related photos |
“When the President asks for a bribe, it is very difficult to refuse it. Even if a sentence is imprisoned, it is somewhat unfair to apply the sentence as it is.”
This “examination” of the court for repatriation of the Kukjeong Nonongdan abandonment, left after sentenced to Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong of two years and six months in prison, reminded me of another trial by Vice Chairman Lee. It is the alleged succession of vice chairman Lee’s illegal management right, which started the trial preparation date last October. The court of revocation and repatriation of destruction acknowledged the act of bribe Lee, but denied the aggressiveness of the act. It is explained that it was a passive act according to the’president’s request’.
Attorney Nam-geun Kim, a policy member of the Participatory Solidarity, who has continuously accused the problems of the succession process, paid attention to this interpretation. Attorney Kim on the 18th <오마이뉴스>In a telephone interview with the company, “It seems that they have tried to overcome the existing (caring for the chaebol) practice, but the nature of the case that Lee tried to utilize the government in the process of taking the lead in the management succession work has not been properly revealed.”
Attorney Kim, however, positively evaluated that he broke the 3·5 rule (the practice of giving three years in prison and five years probation for chiefs who committed embezzlement crimes at the discretion of a judge). Instead of the frame of’Jae-Yong Lee arrest = economic crisis’ frame poured out before the trial of Vice Chairman Lee, he added meaning that “it has left a lesson that a sentence corresponding to the crimes committed by corporate heads should be sentenced.”
The fact that the establishment of the Compliance Committee, which had suffered from’controversy over the care of the controversy’ throughout the revocation and repatriation trial, was not reflected in sentencing was initially considered to be “inappropriate for sentencing reasons.” It is pointed out that before evaluating the establishment of the surveillance committee, it was inconceivable that the company, the victim of the incident, reflected the system that was created to prevent the revival of the perpetrator, the chaebol, as a factor of mitigation.
Attorney Kim said, “The court assessed the past crimes of the Samsung Group, which have been repeated in each regime, such as Doo-Hwan Chun, Tae-woo No, Dae-jung Kim, Myung-bak Lee, and Geun-hye Park, and decided that there was no content on how to overcome it.” It was evaluated (at trial) for not showing enough effort even though they gave a chance close to preferential treatment.” The following is the summary of the conversation with lawyer Kim in one question and one answer.
“From the beginning, it is inappropriate to reflect the sentencing of the surveillance committee”
-The court judged that the compliance committee was not effective.
“There are two cores. The judiciary ordered (to the surveillance committee) to categorize possible risks in the future and to take countermeasures, but they did not. I had to analyze and evaluate past crimes, and also contain information on how to overcome them, but I decided that there was no content.”
-It is pointed out that even though it is a crime of Lee Jae-yong, not a corporate crime, it is a problem that the establishment of a surveillance committee is issued as a condition of sentencing.
“Defendant Lee Jae-yong assessed that although he gave the opportunity to be close to the preferential treatment of the establishment of the monitoring committee, he did not make enough effort to make the guard so that the headman could not commit a crime again. (However) the monitoring committee in a way (for Samsung) ) It is evaluating how well the victim (Samsung) affiliate is equipped with a defense system to prevent the perpetrator, the accused, from re-offending, so it was inappropriate (in the first place) for sentencing reasons.”
-How do you see the sentence?
“The range of sentencing (according to the amount of embezzlement) is a case of receiving a sentence of at least 4 to 5 years. 2 years and 6 months is half of that. I think that the wrong practice of the 3·5 rule has been broken. I think the Sim was in prison within the sentencing range.”
-The judiciary mentioned that the bribery was a’president’s request’ as a reason for the reduction.
“Is this a crime caused by political affiliation or threatened by the president? This point of view has not been sufficiently resolved. The Supreme Court regarded it as a crime of political conflict, and the first trial specifically emphasized that part. The defendant did not contribute his money ((()) There is also the aspect of approaching the regime to create an advantageous system for succession, but it seems that the (the court) did not see it. It’s a pity that we didn’t reveal enough.”
“Is it political-political collusion or scare the president… The Supreme Court and the first trial were electronic?”
-Does it mean that the purpose of bribery should be further elucidated in an illegal succession trial?
“Yes. Was it reluctant (money) to ask for a bribe, or whether the Park Geun-hye administration needed support for his succession plan? This part has not been properly identified.”
-It was a day when attention was focused on whether Vice Chairman Lee was arrested. What will the ruling on this day mean for Korean society?
“This trial left a lesson that corporate heads should be sentenced to punishment corresponding to crimes. In addition, unverified dogmas that the Korean economy would be difficult if the heads of companies were arrested were spread through some media, preventing the sentence of imprisonment. There were many cases where the judiciary was unable to withstand this and sentenced him to imprisonment, but this time was different. I hope that Samsung will closely analyze whether Samsung is experiencing a management crisis due to the prisoner’s prison life of Lee Jae-yong and leave another lesson. .”
-There are limitations, but is it that you evaluate the judgment positively?
“I believe that the court has worked hard to overcome the existing practices. However, as mentioned, the nature of the case that Vice Chairman Lee attempted to utilize the regime in the process of taking the lead in the process of succession to management was not properly revealed. In the next trial, I expect it to be revealed.”