[ad_1]
Even with the program for a professional hearing from the Samsung Compliance Office … Both parties “need enough time” in the face of “delayed litigation”
[이미지출처=연합뉴스]
In a trial held at 2: 5 pm on the 23rd at the Seoul Superior Court Criminal Division Hearing (Judge Jung Joon-young), a special prosecutor said with the same purpose about Lee’s sentence.
The special prosecutor’s prosecutor Kang Baek-sin said, “Since the release, the punishment of bribery cases has also developed.” Law 3 · 5 is a criticism of the court’s practice of sentencing politicians and businessmen to 3 years in prison and 5 years of probation.
He added: “It is clear that it is impossible to apply the 3 · 5 rule to this case, which imposes a case of execution for the former owners of chaebol.” “It is clear that the application of the rule of 3 · 5 without following the will of the changed people Recognizing the accused as a privileged class would be a serious unconstitutional and illegal decision that threatens the sovereignty of the people under the constitution, damages the constitutional value and punishes the principle of equality ”.
Vice President Lee was sentenced to five years in prison at the first trial and later commuted to two years and six months in prison on appeal for four years of probation. In August of last year, the entire consensus body of the Supreme Court convicted for some bribery, which was found not guilty in the appeal trial, and referred it to the Seoul High Court.
The special counsel also emphasized that “the Samsung C&T accountant was sentenced to four years in prison for embezzlement of 1 billion won,” and said, “If the crime in this case reached 8 billion won and a sentence less than that of the accounting staff is not equal to anyone “. did.
The special prosecutors argued that Chun Doo-hwan’s military government held the same position as former President Park Geun-hye at the time, although the regime exercised a superior position over Samsung. “I don’t know what other chaebol group owners are, but it is clear that Samsung Lee Jae-yong and the chairman, who are number one in the business world, are in an equal position of mutual benefit.” said.
However, Vice President Lee strongly refuted this, saying, “We only applied passively and passively in response to requests that could not be rejected.”
Vice President Lee’s attorney said: “The special counsel argues that the so-called probate work is a pending issue for the individual, so it has a high penalty, but it is not.” “All of the major issues in this case are issues that serve the interests of Samsung and its affiliates.” He insisted.
As an example, Vice President Lee cited the case of POSCO, who rejected the application of Choi Seo-won (previously renamed Choi Soon-sil) and promoted the sports team at the request of the Blue House. The lawyer said: “Samsung’s support was essentially no different from other companies.” It was recognized that POSCO had no choice but to promote an integrated sports team after receiving a strong request from the Blue House after initially rejecting Choi Seo-won’s request to create a women’s badminton team. “There is.”
Vice President Lee’s riding support process and the founding of a sports team by POSCO emphasized that “we were unable to follow directions” in the sense that there was a strong request from the Blue House. The lawyer added: “The intensity of the lawsuit was much stronger because the president directly reprimanded me.”
In this regard, the special prosecutor said that “the defendants are making false statements such as passive bribery, unlike the facts confirmed by the Supreme Court in the deliberation process on revocation of revocation.” Said.
The special counsel also noted that the Samsung Compliance Committee’s sentencing hearing must be held in sufficient time and that the conclusion should not be forced after a specified period of time. The special counsel said: “I counted the evaluation items of the Compliance Committee, and there are 145, but it is hard to believe that they will be evaluated within 10 hours.”
On the other hand, Vice President Lee refuted that it was a delay in the demand to request more time for the evaluation related to the professional hearing of the Compliance Committee. Regarding the sentence presented by the special prosecutor as evidence, he argued: “It is a sentence that has been reviewed by both parties, and I do not understand that I am going to explain this for two hours.”
The judge said: “It was too short for the expert judges to complete the report before the 30th of this month,” and said: “We request a rescheduling by presenting an opinion before December 3 and issuing an opinion statement in court on the day 7 “. .
The court decided to hear the opinions of the expert judges on the 7th of next month after accepting the opinions of the expert judges. On the 30th of this month the additional evidence presented by the special prosecutor will be investigated.
Meanwhile, Vice President Lee, who attended court the same day, was questioned by reporters as “assessing the activities of the Compliance Committee” and “thoughts on the extension of the trial,” but responded silently.
Reporter Ki-min Lee [email protected]
