 |
|
| ▲ Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong is attending a continuing trial for the destruction of “Kukjeong Nongdan” held at the Seoul High Court on December 21 last year. | |
| Ⓒ Yonhap News |
See related photos |
“It is all subject to the judgment of the judiciary whether the defendants will consider the Samsung Compliance Committee to be effective and sustainable, whether it will be considered as a condition of sentencing, and if so, to what extent it will be considered.”
On December 21st, Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong had a trial for repatriation of the Kukjeong Nongdan bribery case (Seoul High Court Criminal Part 1). This statement, brought up by Judge Jung Joon-young at the trial just before the decision, is a sentence summarizing the revocation trial trial, which began the first trial on October 25, 2019 and is set to be finalized on the 18th.
At the same time as the trial began, the Compliance Committee (the supervisory committee) had been unable to get rid of the’controversy over the care’. As the Supreme Court judged the amount of embezzlement Lee’s embezzlement as’impossible to probate without the discretion of the judge’, contrary to the second trial, it was suspected that the remand and reconciliation trial had made the Surveillance Committee a bridge to probation. Judge Jung’s remarks that followed were remarks conscious of this controversy.
“However, even if (the watchdog) is considered as a sentencing condition, it is one of the many sentencing conditions, and it is not the only one or the most important one in this case.”
He continued.
“In this case, neither the defendant convicts nor fights against the offenses recognized in the Supreme Court ruling. Everyone will agree that the offenses identified in this case should never happen again in our society.”
In this way, not only the Supreme Court but also the revocation and revocation court of the vice-chairman has already confirmed the guilty of Lee.
The key again is the monitoring committee, which is the only variable in deliberation. How will the surveillance committee affect Lee’s sentencing? This is a key question to be addressed in the judgment that the judge will read in the final sentence.
10 hours
The problem is the evaluation criteria. The common opinion of the three parts of Samsung, special prosecutors, and judges accepted by the judiciary is, above all, that’there was not enough time to evaluate’. Accountant Hong Soon-Tak, a special prosecutor’s hearing committee member, said, “There was a limit to the inspection schedule,” he said, explaining in detail the time and elapsed time for the evaluation of the surveillance committee at the trial on the 7th.
“On November 9, 2020, (the hearing panel) was confirmed and the first meeting was held. General internal control checks are conducted not only on the data submitted by the company, but also on externally obtained data, and after setting the inspection items, a specific plan is drawn up at the actual site. However, in order to meet the schedule proposed by the judge at the first meeting on November 10, the site schedule had to be set before the request material was made (omitted) within 3 days by day and 10 hours by time. I had to stop checking.”
Even in a short period of time, what stood out in each analysis presented by the three members was how much the surveillance committee investigated the merger process between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, which is directly related to whether or not Lee’s bribes were given. The court side and the special prosecutors said’lack’ in common.
Former Constitutional Judge Kang Il-won, a member of the judiciary’s side, pointed out that “the company merger criminal case was passive because he received only a report on the facts and took no action.” On the contrary, attorney Kim Kyung-soo, a member of the Samsung side, said, “It is a case where there are many discussions of guilt and innocence, so it is practically impossible for the surveillance committee to evaluate and take precautions.”
3·5 law
The agenda that the special prosecutor and attorneys argued until the end was how and where the monitoring committee could fit into Lee’s sentencing factors.
The special prosecutor emphasized, “Even if the effectiveness of the compliance monitoring system is recognized,’serious reflection’, which is one factor in the sentencing criteria, is only a sub-fact, and does not affect the calculation of the sentencing section at all.” On the contrary, the lawyer side refuted, “I don’t think the watchdog will be overlooked in this case.”
In particular, the special prosecutor asked Vice-Chairman Lee to be sentenced to 9 years in prison and mentioned the word’probation’ five times in total. It was argued that the probation was “virtually impossible” with “cutting off” through the surveillance committee. They also aimed at the court, saying, “Will the court be evaluated as being faithful to its duties as the realization of the rule of law and the final realization of justice, or whether it will be evaluated as regressing and causing the dark age of rule of law”.
It is pointed out that civic groups that are critical of the surveillance committee should re-define the definition of the revocation trial. This trial is a personal offense for the succession of Vice-Chairman Lee himself, and it is criticized that the compliance system proposed by the judiciary is a corporate crime and cannot be applied as a reason for reduction.
At the same time, they were concerned about the 3·5 law (a phenomenon in which the heads of chaebols who committed embezzlement at the discretion of a judge were given a three-year imprisonment and five years probation). In a commentary on the 14th, the Economic and Financial Center of Participatory Solidarity said, “Under the name of saving the economy, we have been suspended under the so-called 3·5 rule.” I’ve only done it.
KRW 8680810000
Unlike the Surveillance Committee, there is no room for controversy is the amount of bribery that Vice Chairman Lee delivered in the process of Gukjeong Nongdan. Attorneys stressed that, until the end, Vice-Chairman Lee was the case “because he couldn’t reject former President Park’s intimidation” and that “there is a difference from typical canonical collusion.”
However, the Supreme Court’s entire consensus rejected the judgment of 3,63483 million won in the second trial and recognized 8.6 billion 81 million won as the final amount of embezzlement and bribery. It is a number that easily exceeds the amount of embezzlement of more than 5 billion won, the Maginot line that judges whether or not to be imprisoned under the Certain Economic Crimes Weighted Penalty Act. In the Supreme Court’s final decision on June 11 against Choi Seo-won (name after Choi Soon-sil’s name changed), the decision of Lee’s offering of bribes was more specifically determined.
“(Park Geun-hye) The former president’s request corresponds to a bribe request, and Lee Jae-yong’s response to the request is that he actively offered bribes as a willingness to buy a job activity in order to obtain a profit related to his job by taking the advantage of the former president’s request for bribery .”
 |
|
| ▲ Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong attends an appeal trial on a bribe-related bribery case held at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul on the morning of December 18, 2017. | |
| Ⓒ Yoo Seongho |
See related photos |
1432 days
The amount of punishment for Lee’s crimes is determined today (18th), 1432 days after the first arrest warrant was issued on February 17th, 2017 after the Gukjeong Nongdan incident.
“Finally, I don’t know if it’s an appropriate request, but I’m telling you. It’s all my responsibility.”
On December 21, last year, Vice Chairman Lee brought out the name of the late Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Kun-hee, emphasizing that he is “the son who has recently passed his father.” “I want to make a new Samsung suited to my nationality and filial piety to my father,” said Eupso. And said at the same time.
“If you have anything to ask for sin, ask me.”
It means that if you are guilty, you will take responsibility. Only the judge’s answer remains.