The Citizens’ Academy of the Professors Solidarity for Freedom and Justice had its 5th Academy Meeting on April 29, 2021. They held a presentation and discussion on the topic of the “Legal Problems of President Park Geun-hye’s Impeachment and Trial”.
1. Problems in the impeachment process of President Park Geun-hye
- Impeachment was cited on the crime of abuse of authority and coercion, which was later to be found not guilty, even though they were found innocent of the case against supporting personal interest.
- Even though there were no Samsung Group-related cases during the presidential impeachment case, the prosecution added bribery charges and focused on Samsung-related issues through an independent counsel investigation after the president’s dismissal.
- Because the president did not directly accept bribes, the key point is whether the president recognized Choi Seo-won’s pursuit of personal interests, but the Constitutional Court’s ruling constitutes “a crime of abuse of authority even if she did not know it was related to Choi.” To this end, the “economic community” relationship between President Park and Choi Seo-won was established, making it seem as if the president was the party who sought out personal gains.
- Procedurally speaking, fact-finding is important in this case, but impeachment was rushed.
- After only two hearings and no independent counsel under the Special Prosecution Act without fact-finding by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, impeachment was hurriedly decided before the prosecution’s investigation began.
- In the case of the impeachment trial, which ignored the six-month legal period, impeachment trials can be suspended if the criminal trial is in progress for the same crime, but impeachment was decided within 2-3 months even before judgment was made for the preliminary trial.
2. The “complicity” of taking bribes between President Park Geun-hye and Choi Seo-won
- According to the independent counsel’s investigation conducted after the impeachment, instead of abandoning the “economic community” argument, it shifted to establishing a “complicity” between President Park and Choi on bribery charges.
- There’s no direct evidence to determine whether there really was a conspiracy or not, so it can only be judged on circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, no statements were made against President Park during Samsung’s Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong’s trial, which preceded Park’s trial. Because there is no direct evidence of a private meeting between President Park and Lee Jae-yong, it is unreasonable that a conclusion was made that Samsung was bribed and it was colluded by Park Geun-hye and Choi Seo-won.
3. The issue of criteria for judgment in the application of “third-party bribery”
- Unlike a “simple bribery charge” in which a public official directly accepts bribes, the “third-party bribery charge” in which a public official accepts bribes through a third-party. It’s common sense that it should be deliberated on a more rigorous basis in determining the nature and consideration of the public officials’ favors.
(While public officials themselves have little excuse for taking bribes themselves, they should be more careful in judging bribery charges if it benefits others.)
- This means that third-party bribery should have “negative” solicitation and that job-relatedness and reward should be more clearly demonstrated.
- Nevertheless, the court found Samsung guilty of third-party bribery on somewhat unclear and ambiguous grounds that there was an “implicit solicitation for comprehensive pending issues” related to the succession process.
- The court acknowledged the collusion between the president and Choi Seo-won over the situation in which massive support was given to Choi Seo-won’s daughter, although the president did not take advantage of the situation and Samsung was set up for personal interest. At this time, the president clearly recognized that the benefits were focused on Choi Seo-won’s daughter, and it was decided without sufficient proof and a clear fact-finding mission on whether Samsung was asked for support.
- It is important whether the president herself knew that a representative was established under borrowed-name stocks and third-party names in the pursuit of personal interests through Playground and the Blu-K, but the fact-finding was weak.
- The court ruled that a compensational relationship was established because Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong needed to strengthen control, establish a merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, a financial approval for Samsung Life Insurance’s plan to switch to a financial holding company, and a listing of Samsung SDS and Samsung Bio. Given that Samsung needed to strengthen its management rights in preparation for foreign capital (Elliot) to enter the country, Samsung C&T had already merged, and the list of Samsung SDS and Bio was a matter that the government itself could ask for to foster future industries, it is logically difficult to acknowledge the compensational relation.
4. Conclusion
- Severe concerns over the impeachment of the president, procedural haste and political neutrality of the Constitutional Court have raised fundamental doubts about the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea.
- Given the outcome of the court’s trial on the bribery charges, it is true that the ruling was extremely unusual since the president did not receive it directly and that there were no domestic and foreign cases of comprehensive bribery. It is deeply feared that the judicial retaliation against political losers will be repeated if comprehensive bribery charges are applied to people with extensive powers like the president in the future and expand it to third-party bribery charges.
- Everyone should recognize that securing the independence and neutrality of judicial functions is an urgent task in the current political situation where there is a conflict between left, right, progressive, and conservative ideologies.
