Tomorrow (18th), a sentence of repatriation for the destruction of bribery from Gukjeong Nongdan will be announced to determine whether Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong is detained in court.
There has also been a lot of controversy.
Reporter Park Soo-joo summarized the issues that will determine this sentence.
Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong who is accused of bribing former President Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil for group succession work.
The key to this revocation and repatriation decision is’Sang Hyung’, that is, how many sentences will be sentenced to Vice President Lee.
The judgment of guilt or innocence in the Supreme Court has already ended, and it cannot be overturned in a revocation court.
Vice-Chairman Lee was sentenced to imprisonment and probation in the first and second trials, respectively, but he was disadvantaged when the Supreme Court overturned two of the three charges that it saw as innocent in the second trial.
Bribery has also increased significantly compared to the second trial.
According to the law, if the bribe is more than 5 billion won, you will be sentenced to five years in prison.
The special prosecutor sought 9 years in prison.
Then, what is the issue that will determine the sentence of this vice-chairman?
First of all, how to evaluate Samsung’s Compliance Committee.
The Compliance Committee was a hot issue throughout last year when the court announced that it would consider the sentence.
The evaluation conditions suggested by the judiciary were’effectiveness enough to scare the total number of companies’ and’sustainability’.
The evaluation was evaluated by professional judges appointed by the judges, special prosecutors, and lawyers, but the period was short and there was no unification of opinions among the members.
Regarding the evaluation of the committee members, the special prosecutor said, “It did not meet the effectiveness required by the court,” while Vice Chairman Lee put the opposite position, saying, “Even in a short period of time, it was difficult to find a precedent.”
Next is whether the bribe was paid passively or actively.
This is because the sentencing may be reduced or increased accordingly.
Vice-Chairman Lee insisted that it was “accompanied by the president’s reprimand and was forced to give it,” while the special prosecutor said, “We explicitly judged that the Supreme Court had already actively bribed it.”
Finally, the sentencing criteria are for reference only, not compulsory.
This is why, while the special prosecutor emphasizes that the recommended sentence range according to the sentencing criteria is ‘5 to 16 years and 6 months of imprisonment’, chaebol owners are concerned that the so-called ‘3·5 law’ of probation will be realized.
In his final statement, Vice Chairman Lee said, “There will never be a return to the past.” He mentioned his father, the late Chairman Lee Kun-hee, and talked about his responsibility as a group owner.
Regardless of which conclusion is drawn between imprisonment and probation, it seems that the impact is inevitable.
Yonhap News TV article inquiries and reports: katok/line jebo23
Unauthorized reproduction-prohibition of redistribution>
2021/01/17 18:58 sent