hankyoreh

Samsung Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong and Park Geun-hye confidante Choi Soon-sil

With the recent first trial ruling against former President Park Geun-hye, three courts have now delivered three separate judgments on the amount of bribes provided by Samsung Electronics vice president Lee Jae-yong, one of the key issues in court cases related to the influence peddling scandal. While Park stands to face a sentence of life or over ten years in prison if convicted of receiving more than 100 million won (US$93,000) in bribes, Lee’s fate is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court, with sentencing hinging on the standard of 5 billion won (US$4.65 million) in misappropriated funds connected with the total bribes offered.

The different courts have given widely differing calculations of the bribes paid by Lee. The first court in Lee’s own case came to a total of 8.9 billion won (US$8.30 million) and the second to 3.6 billion won (US$3.38 million); the first courts for Park and Choi Soon-sil recognized 7.3 billion won (US$6.78 million) in bribes. The variations stems from the courts’ differing assessments of whether three horses provided to Choi’s daughter Jung Yoo-ra and actions related to Lee’s management succession within the Samsung Group constituted “improper requests.”

All three courts recognized as a bribe the 3.6 billion won sent by Samsung to Choi’s one-woman German company Core Sports for Jung’s equestrian support. But while the first court in Lee’s and Park’s cases also recognized the three horses ridden by Jung as bribes, the second court in Lee’s case did not.

The courts that did view the horses as bribes noted remarks made in Nov. 2015 by Choi, who was quoted as saying, “Lee Jae-yong said he was buying the horses when he met the VIP [President]. When did he say he was lending them? Tell Park Sang-jin to come to Germany immediately.” Noting a later text message from former Samsung Electronics president Park Sang-jin to former Korea Equestrian Federation executive director Park Won-ho reading “I will basically do as desired,” the court judged that the “rights to ownership of the horse lie in practical and internal terms with Choi.”

In contrast, the second court in Lee’s case cited the listing of Samsung Electronics as owner in the horses’ pass photos in concluding that Choi’s remarks “meant that the horses should not be registered in Samsung’s name and cannot be seen as requesting a transfer of ownership.” As a result, the court reduced the amount of misappropriated funds linked to the bribes to 3.6 billion won – down from the 6.4 billion won (US$6.01 million) recognized by the first court – allowing Lee to escape the stiffer sentence if the misappropriated amount had exceeded 5 billion won.

Third party bribery, which unlike direct bribery requires proof of an “improper request,” was recognized only by the first court in Lee’s case. None of the three courts recognized the “individual issues” cited by the special prosecutor – including issues related to Samsung’s merger – as indicating an improper request. Only the first court in Lee’s case recognized comprehensive and implicit improper requests concerning the Samsung succession effort.

“Some of the individual issues had directly and indirectly beneficial effects on Lee Jae-yong’s acquisition of control. Executives with the Future Strategy Office also became actively involved in the individual issues, recognizing Lee Jae-yong as the successor,” it concluded.

In contrast, the first court in Park’s case argued along the same lines as the appeals court in Lee’s. While it acknowledged that some of the issues had a beneficial impact on Lee’s acquisition of control in the group, it also argued that this was “just one of various effects from the individual issues, and it cannot be recognized that there was a ‘succession effort.’”

By Kim Min-kyung, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]