[ad_1]
Evidence or proof of ‘criminal acts’, nowhere can I see
Instead of testing, psychosis … mobilize the ‘imagination’ to ‘explain’
Professor of law, lawyer, etc. Negative expert reaction
“Is the chief prosecutor’s meeting the basis for the indictment? Why is the Supreme Prosecutor’s Depth Committee open?”
On the afternoon of the 1st, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office of Economic Criminal Investigation (Deputy Prosecutor Bok-Hyun Lee, 32nd Sa-bit Training Institute) investigated the results of an investigation into the case of “ Suspected violation of the Capital Market Law and the External Audit Law ” against former and current Samsung executives, including Vice President of Samsung Electronics, Lee Jae-yong, who had been attracting for more than three years. Announced. The result was the indictment of 11 former and current Samsung employees, including Vice President Lee. Unsurprisingly, which has flowed around the indictment since the end of last month, the investigation team has chosen to “force the indictment.”
On June 26 this year, the Investigation Review Committee of the Prosecutor’s Office, made up of external experts, decided to suspend the investigation and non-prosecution against Vice President Lee Jae-yong. ‘Materiality’ was emphasized. △ The position of the academic community and the precedent △ the background clarity △ the materiality and the punishment of the matter doub the need to resolve public doubts through judicial judgment review the results of the superintendent’s prosecutors meeting, etc.
In the press release distributed by the prosecution to reporters, something interesting can be found. Among the 22 pages of data, there are four pages of ‘Appendix’ that summarize the crimes of Vice President Lee Jae-yong. In the attachment, Vice President Lee’s criminal charges are completed. The prosecution also was kind enough to organize the crimes by “stage of crime” if they considered the convenience of legal reporters.
In the distributed data, Vice President Lee, former executives and employees of Samsung Future Strategy Office, Samsung C&T, and Samsung Biologics were portrayed as those who committed unscrupulous financial crimes that could not be found in the history of the constitution.
However, anyone who has looked closely at the prosecution’s press release will raise their head with a question mark. This is because there is no direct evidence to prove Lee’s allegations anywhere in the prosecution data, which emphasized the seriousness and punishment of the case and put the legitimacy of the prosecution ahead.
Despite the title of ‘Results of the investigation of illegal mergers and accounting fraud of the Samsung Group’, the press release prepared by the prosecution is overlaid with suspicions, predictions, speculations and various formulas and graphs, which should be the basis of the accusation. He is lost.
The prosecution explained how employees of the company’s Future Strategy Office and others controlled the share price during the merger between Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T in the past, and discounted more than half of the press release. The prosecution even borrowed the logic used by Elliot, an American hedge fund, which bought public resentment, attacking the Korean government and Samsung.
◆ Prosecutor’s press release with explanation only and no “evidence”
Considering the dedication of the prosecution to the preparation of the data, the content did not meet expectations. The investigation of this case has been conducted for more than 44 months since Special Prosecutor Park Young-soo. Meanwhile, the investigation team has sought public opinion on several occasions through some means of the prosecution.
Paradoxically, the media game of the prosecution served as an opportunity to test various suspicions surrounding this case without any addition or subtraction. None of the suspicions raised by the prosecution through public opinion has so far been confirmed as fact. The allegations of market price manipulation, which accounted for more than half of the press releases, have already confirmed contradictions such as “discrepancy of views” and “error of fact”.
Prosecution is a procedure in which the prosecution requests the court for a hearing to determine whether or not a crime has been established when evidence is obtained to prove the conviction. For this, ‘proof’ is required, not ‘vocation’. It does not mean that the crime is “likely” to have occurred, but that the crime actually occurred. What is needed for this is not a prediction or presumption, but a physical evidence or statement that proves the crime. It is not too late to explain the use of equations and diagrams after that.
There is no “proof” in the press release for the prosecution. To prosecute Vice President Lee, you must at least be able to show that you have instructed, or acknowledged, to manipulate market prices or account for fraudulent accounting. This is the rationale for the decision to suspend the investigation and abstain from Vice President Lee, with a wide margin of ’10 to 3 ‘by the Supreme Swordsman Depth Committee. The prosecution could not step into the vague reasoning at the time of special counsel Park Young-soo that Vice President Lee would have been behind the Office of Future Strategy. The press release delivered by the prosecution to the media that day “denies” this.
◆ The ‘imaginative power’ of the prosecution reappeared … ‘Lee Jae-yong’s orders’ cannot be proven
The prosecution covered the absence of evidence with an investigation (修辭).
The following are some of Vice President Lee’s crimes as stated by the prosecution.
These sentences show the “imagination” of the prosecution. For the above explanation to be a ‘criminal act’, there must be a corresponding minimum proof. From this point of view, the prosecution’s press release cannot avoid criticism that it is a “ fast ”.
Since Park Young-soo’s special prosecution, thus far, the prosecution has not shown that Vice President Lee has given orders to former and current executives and employees of the Office of Future Strategy or Samsung C&T, Cheil Industries and Samsung Bio on mergers. or snacks.
◆ Prosecution to resolve national suspicions? “The logic of listening for the first time”
In a press release, the investigation team explained why the indictment was enforced despite the decision to prosecute the prosecution.
We listen to various opinions, including critical opinions from outside experts such as legal, financial and economic accounting, and we thoroughly review the content of the investigation, the law and the direction of the case.
As a result, the prosecution of the main responsible, synthesizing the multiple positions of the academy and the precedents, the clarity of the entity evidenced by the evidence relationship, the materiality and sanction of the case, the need to resolve public doubts through court proceedings , and the review of the results of the meeting of the superior prosecutors made up of investigative experts. I came to.’
The reaction of the experts to the “consultation of dissent” of the prosecution is not very friendly.
Attorney A, a former senior prosecutor, said: “There is a side to this case that started from political considerations from the beginning. “I don’t know what the prosecution is talking about in the academy and the precedents.”
Professor B, an expert in capital market law, said: “There will not be many ‘charges’ in the opinion of the academic world for the pretense of accounting or control of market prices in this case, unlike the claim of the prosecution” .
Professor C, who is a lawyer who was a judge and teaches procedural law at the university, criticized: “If the result of the meeting of the chief prosecutor is the basis for prosecution, I do not know why the Investigation Commission of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office “.
D, an associate attorney at a large law firm in Gangnam, Seoul, shook his head and said, “This is the first time I have heard of an indictment to resolve a national suspicion.”
Copyright holder © Market economy newspaper Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
