Special Prosecutor Files Appeal Against Dismissal of Recusal Request for Lee Jae-yong's Retrial Court

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Oh Hyung-gil] The special prosecution has filed an appeal against the dismissal of its motion to disqualify the presiding judges of the retrial for the state power abuse case involving Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong.

According to the legal community on the 23rd, the special prosecution submitted an appeal against the dismissal decision to the Criminal Division 3 of the Seoul High Court (Chief Judge Bae Jun-hyun). Consequently, the Supreme Court will make the final decision on whether the trial panel will continue to preside over the case.

On the 17th, the Criminal Division 3 dismissed the special prosecution's motion to disqualify the Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Jeong Jun-young), which is handling Vice Chairman Lee's retrial.

The special prosecution argued, "The dismissal decision failed to acknowledge that Chief Judge Jeong Jun-young, presiding over Vice Chairman Lee's case, conducted a biased trial against the defendants with preconceived notions, losing consistency."

In particular, the special prosecution explained that, in light of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission's sentencing guidelines, the post-establishment and operation of the Samsung Compliance Committee cannot be applied as a general mitigating factor in this case where Samsung Electronics is the victim.

They added, "Chief Judge Jeong abruptly changed his stance from his initial mention at the first hearing in October last year, where he said, 'Please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the effective compliance system.' At the hearing on January 17, he stated, 'The compliance system can only be considered a sentencing factor if it is effectively operated,' thereby presuming the establishment of the Compliance Committee and even expressing his intention to appoint a specific person as a professional investigator based on that premise."

They criticized, "Ultimately, Chief Judge Jeong, keeping the U.S. probation system in mind, was the first to propose the establishment of the Compliance Committee, whose use as a sentencing factor is unclear, blatantly revealing his true intention to maintain the suspended sentence verdict handed down by the lower court before the retrial."

The special prosecution also pointed out that Chief Judge Jeong deliberately ignored evidence related to aggravating factors additionally presented by the special prosecution, based on the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing 'unlawful solicitation related to succession work' and 'active bribery to influence the president's official duties.'

They emphasized that the sentencing hearing was conducted only on the evaluation of the establishment, operation, and effectiveness of the Compliance Committee, whose status as a mitigating factor is unclear, and that the trial was conducted arbitrarily and unfairly with preconceived notions.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.