EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Aug. 18)

(

Samsung case apparently contradicts rule of law

Friday's ruling on a Samsung case marked the end of a lengthy legal fight against
its former and incumbent executives who were indicted for breach of trust, tax
evasion and other charges. The Seoul High Court handed down a three-year
suspended prison term to former Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-hee for illegal
bond trading which caused 22.7 billion won worth of damage to a system
integration subsidiary of the nation's largest conglomerate. He was also fined
110 billion won ($89 million).
Lee, 67, might breathe a sigh of relief as he managed to avoid serving time with
the suspended term. But the sentence is controversial enough to raise questions
about the justice system and the rule of law. In the eyes of the public, the
judges were too lenient with Lee who was found guilty of forcing Samsung SDS to
sell bonds with warrants (BW) to his only son Jae-yong at below market prices in
1999. The court said that Lee brought damage to the firm by issuing the bonds at
7,150 won per share, much lower than the estimated market price of 14,230 won per
share.
On July 16 last year, the Seoul Central District Court cleared Lee of the damage
charges by inappropriately calculating the bond price at 9,740 won per share. The
lower court sentenced Lee to a three-year suspended prison term with a fine of
110 billion won for evading taxes for capital gains from the bond sale designed
to illegally transfer his managerial control and wealth to his son. On Oct. 10,
the Seoul High Court upheld the district court's sentence. But, on May 29 this
year, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate court, ordering a
retrial.
Then the high court recalculated the bond price and convicted Lee of the damage
charges. But, the court did not increase the previous sentence despite the
additional conviction. This does not make any legal sense. The court was too
lenient in not putting him in prison. The judges might have taken into
consideration Lee's contribution to the economy and his influence on Korean
society in order to help him get the suspended term.
According to the sentencing guidelines that were introduced last month, judges
are required to hand down a prison term of 4 to 7 years to any one that brought a
damage of 20 billion won or so to his or her firm. Those convicted of inflicting
more than 5 billion won are not in principle entitled to a suspended term. In
conclusion, the high court judges ignored the guidelines in the Lee case. The
judges are under criticism for saving Lee at the sacrifice of the justice system
and the rule of law.
In other words, the Samsung case only contradicted the basic principle: all men
are equal before the law. It has just revived cynicism that says, "If you are
rich, you are cleared of any charges. But if you are poor, you are guilty." How
can we expect the nation to maintain democracy without guaranteeing the rule of
law? How can the law enforcement authorities effectively crack down on a series
of illegal inheritance of managerial control and wealth from business tycoons to
their children?
(END)