"Answer Yes or No"… Prosecutors Raise Voices in Lee Jae-yong Trial

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] "I do not clearly remember the situation at the time." (Witness)

"Witness! Please try to answer affirmatively or negatively to the questions." (Prosecutor)

On the 20th, at the 3rd trial of Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong held at the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 25-2 (Presiding Judge Park Jeong-je), Han Mo, a former team leader at Samsung Securities, appeared as a witness following the previous trial date. Han was involved in advising on Samsung Group's governance structure during his tenure at Samsung Securities and also participated in drafting the 'Project G' document.

The prosecution conducted questioning to elicit testimony suggesting that Vice Chairman Lee's succession plan was meticulously planned under the leadership of the Future Strategy Office. However, Han stated that he "does not clearly remember" much of the content. The prosecution showed signs of frustration, raising their voices at times.

Witness: "I don't remember, I don't know well"

Han is considered a key witness related to 13 out of 16 charges against Vice Chairman Lee. The prosecution views the Project G document, which Han helped draft, as Lee's succession plan led by the Future Strategy Office. According to the prosecution, during the succession process outlined in this document, the plan was revised due to Chairman Lee Kun-hee's illness, leading to the merger of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries (formerly Everland).

The trial began with the prosecution's main questioning, which was not completed in the previous session. The prosecution showed Han the 'Group Governance Issues' document prepared in July 2014 and asked, "Considering Chairman Lee Kun-hee collapsed in May of the same year, is it correct that this is an updated version of Project G drafted in 2012?" Han replied, "I don't remember exactly, but I think I reviewed it upon request from the Future Strategy Office."

The 'Group Governance Issues' document presented by the prosecution included an analysis of Vice Chairman Lee's Samsung Electronics shareholding based on the premise of separating the two sisters, Lee Boo-jin, President of Hotel Shilla, and Lee Seo-hyun, Chairwoman of the Samsung Welfare Foundation. Based on this, three options were considered: maintaining the current governance structure, splitting Samsung Electronics' business, and transitioning to a holding company. All options commonly suggested the necessity of merging Everland and Samsung C&T.

The prosecution asked, "You reviewed and suggested that the merger of Samsung C&T and Everland was necessary for governance improvement or Lee's succession, and the merger actually took place in May 2015. Do you think your opinion was reflected?" This question aimed to elicit testimony that the merger was promoted under the Future Strategy Office's leadership to ensure Lee's stable management succession. Han answered, "Ultimately, the merger was executed as in the report, but I do not know the internal background or discussions that led to the final decision."

Chief Prosecutor Lee Bok-hyun: "Does that make sense?"

Afterward, the prosecution focused on questioning Han about the circumstances under which Ji Mo, a team member under Han, reported stock prices to the Future Strategy Office after Everland changed its name to Cheil Industries and was listed on the KOSPI. These questions appeared aimed at confirming suspicions that Cheil Industries' value was inflated ahead of the merger with Samsung C&T. However, Han repeatedly answered that he "did not know exactly," leading Chief Prosecutor Lee Bok-hyun to take over the questioning.

Chief Prosecutor Lee asked, "Does it make sense for a team member to report stock prices to the Future Strategy Office without consulting the team leader, the witness?" Han responded, "There were teams advising on Samsung Group at the time, but there were also other teams. Since various tasks were ongoing, it was difficult to provide real-time opinions even on simple facts like stock prices."

Chief Prosecutor Lee pressed further, "So you are saying that a staff member could report to the Future Strategy Office without even asking the team leader, the witness?" Han replied, "At the time, I could not have known about the merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, and it was difficult to judge which parts of the report were important information. Even if I had given an opinion, I did not think it was significant enough to act upon."

The prosecution continued questioning about the Future Strategy Office's reports on Cheil Industries' stock price, but Han consistently answered "I don't know" or "I don't remember." Even when the prosecution raised their voice calling "Witness!" repeatedly, Han's answers did not change. Eventually, the court decided to continue this line of questioning at a later trial when Ji, the team member, appears as a witness.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Lee Bok-hyun. / Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

Leading questions or not... Clash between prosecution and defense

During the questioning, there were heated exchanges and loud voices between the prosecution and the defense team. Below is a scene from the morning trial session.

Witness: I remember discussing it, but I don't recall the timing.

Prosecution: That sounds ambiguous... (omitted) What we are asking is whether there were any other mergers within the group besides Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T.

Defense: Sorry, but the prosecutors are asking supplementary questions.

Prosecution: How can you interrupt? Are we leading the witness?

Defense: You've been doing it for a very long time.

Prosecution: We are allowed to ask under the Criminal Procedure Act because we are not satisfied with the witness's answers. You shouldn't interrupt. Where else does this happen?

Defense: It would be better if you asked questions that the witness can easily answer...

Prosecution: Are you obstructing the questioning now?

The prosecution and defense's heated exchange seemed to be temporarily settled by the court's warning to "both sides to be cautious." However, the argument flared again during the afternoon session. The defense requested, "I will not object to leading questions, but there are three issues in one question. Please separate them." The prosecution responded, "The witness already answered." The defense then said, "I understand that leading questions are inevitable," provoking the prosecution to ask, "Who said we led the witness?" The defense replied, "In a broad sense, yes," and explained, "I am not saying I don't understand the questions, but asking three issues at once confuses the witness, so please separate them." The prosecution agreed and stepped back, ending the dispute for the day.

Additional questioning lasted over 8 hours... Court says "Let's continue next time"

The trial of Vice Chairman Lee started at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:15 p.m. The prosecution intended to continue questioning Han later into the evening, but the court stopped them, saying, "Let's stop here." The prosecution has regarded Han as a key witness and has been questioning him since the previous trial. However, it appears they have yet to obtain testimony that supports the charges against Vice Chairman Lee. The prosecution plans to continue questioning Han at the 4th trial scheduled for the 3rd of next month. The court intends to proceed with the defense's cross-examination once the prosecution finishes their questioning.

The prosecution alleges that during the 2015 merger of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, Samsung Group, led by the Future Strategy Office, disseminated false information and announced fake favorable news to inflate Cheil Industries' stock price and lower Samsung C&T's stock price. They believe Vice Chairman Lee was informed of and approved these important matters, leading to his indictment last September alongside former Future Strategy Office chief Choi Ji-sung and others.

On the other hand, Vice Chairman Lee's defense argues that the listing of Cheil Industries and the merger with Samsung C&T were all necessary business decisions with no legal issues, asserting his innocence. It is expected that the defense will continue questioning to elicit responses supporting that the merger was legally conducted based on business necessity during their cross-examination.

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