Samsung Lawyer “Comprehensive judgment on the effectiveness of the Compliance Committee … Complementary criticism of the Professional Psychological Committee”

Samsung Electronics Vice President Lee Jae-yong, who is accused of being involved in the ‘Gukjeong Non-Dan’ incident, is facing trial in a remand court, while Samsung’s lawyers re-emphasized the effectiveness and sustainability of the Samsung Compliance Committee.

In particular, he emphasized that a comprehensive judgment must be made because the individual elements of professional judges will simply be weighed and evaluated. In addition, a plan was also developed to complement the professional judges’ findings.

On the afternoon of the afternoon of the 21st, the First Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court held the ninth trial date for the revocation and repatriation of Gukjeong Nongdan at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul.

At the trial that day, the opinions of prosecutors and lawyers were issued on the evaluation of the three professional judges on the effectiveness of Samsung’s Compliance Monitoring Committee. The opinion statement is carried out at the request of a special prosecution, and a fierce battle was fought as it could act as a factor in the decision to send Samsung Electronics Vice President Lee Jae-yong in the future.

The court recommended that Samsung Electronics Vice President Lee Jae-yong evaluate the establishment of the Compliance Committee and the performance of its activities, starting the first destruction trial last year.

Consequently, Samsung launched the Compliance Committee in January at the request of the court and is working hard to strengthen compliance management and spread the culture of compliance within the organization.

The Compliance Committee set out with an enormous mission to reliably establish the ‘observance of laws and principles’, which are increasingly socially demanding in business activities, as an organizational culture. An effective compliance monitoring system is ordered, focused on problems that arise from its inception, and the implementation process is evaluated by experts.

At the hearing held on the 9th, the court selected former constitutional judge Kang Il-won, Kim Kyung-soo’s lawyer at the Yulchon law firm, and accountant Soon-Tak Hong. Based on the content discussed in the trial, field visits and interviews with related parties have been carried out, and the performance of activities was evaluated as if the Compliance Committee operates effectively with assured objectivity and neutrality.

At the trial held on the 7th, the evaluation results of these three professional judges were presented and members Kang Il-won and Kim Gyeong-su gave their opinions on the basis that the compliance system developed by Samsung is effective and sustainable.

In particular, it was argued that the Compliance Committee not only operates well as an independent external organization, but also displays a strengthened internal compliance system. In addition, as a result of interviews with executives and internal employees, it was assessed that management’s willingness to establish a compliance system was reaffirmed.

Even at the hearing that day, the attorneys made it clear that the compliance committee has the effectiveness and sustainability based on the opinions of the expert hearing committee members.

Since the inception of the Compliance Committee, Samsung has made recommendations to the board of directors on independence and effective activities, allowing them to present opinions and make requests. Consequently, the Compliance Committee has presented opinions on 129 of the 333 cases and recommended the succession of management rights and not union management.

Samsung Electronics VP Lee Jae-yong made a promise to the public about leaving the fourth-generation management and union in response to the Compliance Committee’s recommendation, and affiliates are joining in and keeping the promise.

Member Kang Il-won, a member of the professional hearings committee, confirmed the implementation details through the evaluation report and considered that the possibility of top management using the company’s organization was low.

Commissioner Kim Gyeong-soo also saw that the likelihood of the compliance officer’s opinion being reflected in senior management decision-making has increased.

“Vice President Lee Jae-yong made a promise and apologized to the public, and Samsung apologized for agreeing to the donations.” He also said that the Compliance Committee and the Compliance Officer are interacting and working in a positive way.

“The special prosecutor insisted that all individual evaluation items of the expert judges must be met, but this is a misunderstanding.” “The court presented the issues necessary to verify effectiveness and sustainability, while Kang Il-won examined 18 items in five areas. I said I did. ”

At the same time, the lawyers are of the opinion that it is not rational to conclude affirmatively in the form of “a few positives and a few negatives”, as the special prosecutor asserts. It is noted that the importance of each element should not be judged in the same way, since the importance is different.

Furthermore, they claimed that it was not appropriate to assess effectiveness, which is the purpose of presenting the Compliance Committee, as positive assessment could suddenly turn into ‘negative assessment’ as interpreted by the assessment report.

The lawyer said: “When looking at the elements related to the withdrawal of the membership agreement, the members mentioned that they were not legally bound, but could not actually withdraw. So this is negative or positive?” It is not reasonable to change to ‘.’

The lawyer said, “The Kang Il-won committee has monitored senior management to determine the effectiveness of the compliance system, the effectiveness and sustainability of the compliance system in accordance with laws and regulations, and assessed it as sustainable.” “I did not evaluate my efforts.”

Furthermore, “the Kang Il-won Committee considered that the effectiveness had been strengthened more than before and that there was no problem with sustainability.” As for the overall assessment, the content promised and delivered by the defendant and Samsung should be viewed as showing some effectiveness and authenticity rather than sound judgment. “

Alongside this, the attorneys also announced plans to further supplement the points made by the expert panelists.

The lawyers emphasized that after losing luck, “Samsung’s compliance system is not as perfect as 10 months ago,” the regulations were revised to allow the board of directors to resolve the recommendations and actions of the Compliance Committee, and the possibility of that the recommendations are ignored has decreased significantly. .

Regarding the point that the seven affiliates are free to withdraw from the compliance management contract, it was explained that a resolution from the board of directors was required and the system was improved so that affiliates could present their opinions.

Additionally, regarding concerns about refusal to accept the compliance committee’s recommendation or suspension of support, affiliates announced that they respected the president’s right to recommend committee members on the 17th.

The lawyer said: “By speaking at trial today, we have become legally binding” and said: “We are improving the system so that a resolution of the board of directors is required if the request for assistance is not accepted.”