Special Prosecutor and Lee Jae-yong's Side Engage in Heated Debate Over Sentencing (Comprehensive)

Samsung Compliance Monitoring Committee's Expert Hearing Schedule Dispute... Both Sides Say "More Time Needed" vs "Litigation Delay"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Ki-min Lee] The special prosecution team led by Park Young-soo argued in the retrial of Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong’s bribery charges related to the state affairs manipulation case that Lee and former President Park Geun-hye had a ‘win-win relationship’ and that the ‘3·5 Rule’ should no longer be applied. On the other hand, Lee’s side countered that their support was passive and reluctant, responding to demands from former President Park that could not be refused, leading to a heated debate between the two sides.

At the trial held at 2:05 p.m. on the 23rd under the Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Jung Joon-young), the special prosecution made these remarks regarding Lee’s sentencing.

Kang Baek-shin, head prosecutor of the special prosecution, stated, “Since liberation, the punishability of bribery cases has also evolved,” and mentioned, “In the past, there was widespread public disapproval of the so-called 3·5 Rule sentencing.” The 3·5 Rule is a critical term referring to the past court practice of sentencing political and business figures to three years in prison with a five-year probation.

He added, “It is clear that applying the 3·5 Rule sentencing standard, which used to grant probation to chaebol owners, is not applicable in this case,” and criticized, “Applying the 3·5 Rule without reflecting the changed public will would recognize the defendant as part of the privileged class, resulting in a serious unconstitutional and illegal decision that infringes on popular sovereignty under the Constitution, damages constitutional values, and undermines the principle of equality.”

Lee was sentenced to five years in prison in the first trial but had his sentence reduced to two years and six months with four years of probation on appeal. Last August, the Supreme Court’s full bench overturned the appellate court’s acquittal of some bribery amounts and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

The special prosecution also emphasized, “A Samsung C&T accounting employee was sentenced to four years in prison for embezzling 1 billion won,” and stressed, “Since the embezzlement amount in this case reaches 8 billion won, it would be clearly unequal if a lighter sentence is given compared to the accounting employee.”

The special prosecution argued that while the Chun Doo-hwan military government exercised a superior position over Samsung, former President Park Geun-hye was on an equal footing with Lee at the time. Prosecutor Kang said, “While other chaebol group owners may differ, it is clear that Samsung’s Lee Jae-yong, the top business leader, and the president had a mutually win-win equal status,” and added, “The Supreme Court’s full bench explicitly ruled on active bribery provision.”

However, Lee’s side strongly rebutted, saying, “We only provided passive and reluctant support in response to demands that could not be refused.”

Lee’s defense attorney argued, “The special prosecution claims that the so-called succession work is a personal issue for Lee with high punishability, but that is not true,” and stated, “The main issues in this case all contributed to the interests of Samsung and its affiliates.”

Lee’s side also cited the case of POSCO, which initially refused Choi Seo-won’s (formerly Choi Soon-sil) demands but later promoted a sports team under strong Blue House demands. The defense said, “Samsung’s support was essentially no different from other companies,” and countered, “It is recognized that POSCO initially refused the request from Choi Seo-won’s side to establish a women’s badminton team but had no choice but to promote an integrated sports team after strong demands from the Blue House.”

Lee’s side emphasized that both the equestrian support process and POSCO’s sports team establishment process involved strong demands from the Blue House, making it impossible to disobey the instructions. The defense added, “The demand intensity was even stronger as Lee was directly reprimanded by the president.”

Regarding this, the special prosecution said, “The defendants are making false claims such as passive bribery provision that contradict the facts confirmed by the Supreme Court during the retrial,” and questioned, “The sincerity of the sentencing consideration based on the compliance monitoring system premised on sincere reflection is doubtful.”

The special prosecution also pointed out that the sentencing review of Samsung’s compliance monitoring committee should be conducted with sufficient time and that conclusions should not be forced within a short period. The prosecution said, “There are 145 evaluation items for the compliance monitoring committee, and it is hard to believe they can be evaluated within just a few hours,” adding, “It is doubtful whether it can be done properly even if it takes several months.”

On the other hand, Lee’s side argued that requesting more time for the expert review related to the compliance monitoring committee is a delay tactic. Regarding the judgment documents submitted as evidence by the special prosecution, they said, “These are judgment documents that both parties have reviewed, so it is hard to understand why they want to explain them for two hours,” and claimed, “There is no purpose other than delaying the trial.”

The court said, “The expert reviewers said it is tight to complete the report by the 30th of this month,” and added, “They requested to adjust the schedule to submit opinions by December 3 and to make oral statements in court on the 7th.”

The court accepted the expert reviewers’ opinion and decided to hear their oral statements on the 7th of next month. On the 30th of this month, the court will conduct an investigation of additional evidence submitted by the special prosecution.

Meanwhile, Lee, who appeared in court that day, remained silent when asked by reporters about the ‘evaluation of the compliance monitoring committee’s activities’ and his thoughts on the prolonged trial.