'Not Guilty in First Trial' Lee Jae-yong's First Appeal Hearing... Tense Exchange Over Witness Applications Between Both Sides

At the first appeal trial of Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong, who was acquitted in the first trial after being indicted on allegations of unfair merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, the prosecution and Lee's defense team clashed over the prosecution's witness requests.

Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong. Photo by Jin-hyung Kang aymsdream@

The Criminal Division 13 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Baek Gang-jin, Kim Seon-hee, Lee In-su) held the first pretrial hearing for the appeal case involving Lee's alleged violations of the Capital Markets Act, market manipulation, and breach of fiduciary duty at 3 p.m. on the 27th. Unlike formal trials, defendants are not required to attend, so none of the 14 defendants, including Lee, appeared in court.

On this day, the prosecution expressed difficulty in accepting the first trial's acquittal and requested 11 experts related to the Capital Markets Act and the External Audit Act (EAA) as witnesses. In response, Lee's defense team argued, "The main reason for the prosecution's appeal is factual misinterpretation, but many of the witnesses are experts who did not directly experience the case," adding, "Given the differing expert opinions on accounting treatment, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to hear testimony from experts aligned with the prosecution's view." They further stated, "If the witnesses are accepted, it will be inevitable for the defense to request witnesses to rebut their testimonies."

Regarding this, the court said, "The Criminal Procedure Rules have long been amended to allow evidence investigation only in three exceptional cases, such as content not examined in the first trial," and added, "Since this is not new evidence nor content unexamined in the first trial, the purpose of calling these witnesses may not comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules," and "The prosecution needs to provide additional explanations on why these individuals should be witnesses for positive consideration."

Additionally, unlike the first trial, the prosecution requested to proceed first with the trial on the issue of violation of the External Audit Act. The prosecution stated, "In the first trial, the Capital Markets Act violation issue was addressed first, and the EAA violation was dealt with later," and "Due to time constraints, there was a reflection from the prosecution that sufficient explanation and persuasion of the court regarding the EAA violation were difficult." The court accepted the prosecution's request, saying, "Regarding the order, the EAA part is a clearer issue, so the order seems appropriate."

Meanwhile, the court set the next pretrial hearing for 3 p.m. on July 22. On that day, the court plans to conclude the pretrial procedures.