Prosecutor’s protest against the presentation of the attorney’s data
“If it were the late, the judge would have stopped it”
Samsung’s defense… “Public and publicly available materials”
viewer
At the trial of Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong’s suspicion of improper succession of management rights, the prosecution and Samsung side engaged in a sharp battle over the method of defense. The battle began when the prosecutors criticized the data that Samsung used for the defense, saying, “The method itself is not appropriate.”
Part 25 of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Agreement (Judge Park Jeong-je, Park Sarang, and Kwon Seong-soo) held the second trial preparation date for the accused trial by 11 high-ranking officials from Samsung, including Vice Chairman Lee, and heard the positions of the prosecution and Samsung side. .
The trial began with a presentation (PT) by the prosecution explaining the points of the accused’s charges. After the prosecution’s announcement, which took place for over an hour, a group of defense attorneys on Samsung’s PT defense proceeded. Following the preparatory date for the first trial, the lawyers argued for innocence, denying the prosecution’s charges against the prosecution.
On this day, the lawyer presented various materials such as media reports and debated, but the prosecution criticized this PT method as being inappropriate. The prosecution said, “I will only give you one word for a moment,” said the prosecution, saying, “You have posted information such as articles and minutes of the National Assembly to explain, but evidence has not been investigated.”
The prosecution said, “It appears to be the basis for various arguments, but they seem to require strict proof,” he said. “It seems that the method itself is not appropriate.”
At the same time, the prosecutor said, “If the prosecution had argued in the same way, I think that the court would of course have stopped it,” and said, “I cannot agree with this type of defense.”
viewer
Regarding the prosecution’s objection, the lawyer refuted, saying, “Most of the attached materials are public and publicly available materials,” and “we need materials to explain in our own way.” The lawyer also expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s sudden opinion during the defense.
On that day, the prosecution said, “A plan to prepare for succession has already been established in 2012, before and after the inauguration of Samsung Electronics’ vice chairman (by Lee’s), and the merger between Everland (formerly Cheil Industries) and Samsung C&T is promoted in accordance with the’Project G’established by the Future Strategy Office. That’s it.” The prosecution said that Project G was the succession plan of Vice Chairman Lee, and it contained the contents of strengthening the group’s dominance by overvaluing the value of Cheil Industries, which Lee owns a large amount of, and by undervaluing the value of Samsung C&T.
Accordingly, Vice Chairman Lee’s attorney noted that in the indictment that Cheil Industries was overvalued 23 times and Samsung C&T was undervalued 16 times, he said, “There are also expressions that the opinion of being overvalued or undervalued is dominant. “I pleaded. The lawyer also emphasized that Samsung C&T’s management performance and credit rating improved after the merger with Cheil Industries.
/ Reporter Lee Hee-jo [email protected]
< 저작권자 ⓒ 서울경제, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 >