Despite Senior Prosecutors' Large-Scale Involvement... Prosecution Faces 'Difficulties' in Witness Examination for Lee Jae-yong Trial

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] On the 8th, at the Seoul Central District Court's main courtroom, during the trial of Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong held under the Criminal Division 25-2 (Presiding Judge Park Jeong-je), Samsung Securities employee Mr. Lee appeared as a witness. Prosecutors had the youngest investigator on the team, Prosecutor Shim Ki-ho, ask prepared questions, while Chief Prosecutors Lee Bok-hyun, Kim Young-cheol, and Choi Jae-hoon supplemented with additional questions. If the witness Mr. Lee's answers deviated from the intent of their questions, the chief prosecutors would step in. The more frequently the chief prosecutors intervened, the more it indicated that the examination was not proceeding as intended, and that was the case that day.

Trial Begins with Dispute... Prosecution: "Pre-contact with Witness Improper"

The prosecution first asked Mr. Lee whether he had any contact with Han, the former Samsung Securities team leader who was the first witness in this trial. Mr. Lee was a subordinate of Han during the merger of Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T and was dispatched to the merger task force (TF).

Prosecutor Shim Ki-ho: Han, who was the witness's former superior, testified as a witness in this case. Have you recently heard about Han's testimony or had any contact with parties related to the lawsuit?

Witness: I have not had any contact with Han, but as you mentioned, around early May, after hearing through the legal team that I was selected as a witness, I called my lawyer out of curiosity.

Prosecutor Shim Ki-ho: Did you consult with your lawyer?

Witness: Yes. I asked about the procedures that would follow for about two hours.

The reason the prosecution asked these questions was interpreted as an attempt to highlight problems with the defense's pre-trial meetings with witnesses.

Earlier, before the examination, the prosecution and defense engaged in a tense exchange over the pre-interview with the witness. The prosecution argued that it was inappropriate for Lee Jae-yong's defense counsel to have prior contact with the witness, while the defense countered that meeting the witness to verify facts was necessary and that forbidding even that was like asking them to play on a "tilted playing field."

This dispute continued for over 30 minutes until the court intervened to mediate. "In the U.S. and Japan, prior contact by both sides is allowed, but our Supreme Court's view on the Criminal Procedure Act?whether it aligns with the U.S. or Japan, or whether only contact initiated by the prosecution, as in the former Vice Minister Kim Hak-ui case, is permitted?is a very delicate and sensitive issue. If both sides provide their opinions, we will review them. Let's end this discussion here and proceed with the witness examination."

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

Witness Examination Goes Contrary to Prosecution's Expectations

During the main examination, the prosecution questioned Mr. Lee about the entire process from preparing to executing the Samsung C&T merger. Prosecutor Shim Ki-ho asked prepared questions, but overall, the examination seemed to deviate from the prosecution's intentions. Chief Prosecutors Lee Bok-hyun, Kim Young-cheol, and Choi Jae-hoon frequently interrupted with "That's not correct." Below is a scene from the trial that day.

Prosecutor Shim Ki-ho: The merger of Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T is a bigger deal than the acquisition of Lakeside Country Club. Does it make sense that there are no on-site due diligence materials related to the merger?

Witness: There is a difference. An acquisition or sale is, in a way, a disappearance, while a merger is a combination, so they coexist. Since it is determined by stock prices and such, there can be differences in due diligence.

Chief Prosecutor Choi Jae-hyung: That's not it. The question is whether there should have been due diligence since Cheil Industries was acquiring Samsung C&T through the merger.

Witness: I understand that an accounting firm conducted the due diligence.

Chief Prosecutor Choi Jae-hyung: Are you saying the witness does not know the details?

Witness: Yes.

Chief Prosecutor Lee Bok-hyun: At first, the witness said they did not know whether due diligence was done, but now it seems like they are dodging the question by saying they don't know well...

The prosecution also questioned about 'Project G,' which was identified as the Samsung Group's succession plan. However, Mr. Lee said, "I have never seen the main body of the report," and failed to provide proper answers to the prosecution's questions. The prosecution continued to ask about the merger review and preparation process, but Mr. Lee mostly responded that he "did not know precisely." Eventually, near the end of the morning examination, Chief Prosecutor Lee Bok-hyun intervened, saying, "The answers are completely different from what we expected, so we will continue the examination in the afternoon," and requested a recess.

Lee Jae-yong, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics [Photo by Yonhap News]

Intensified Tensions... "Examination Illegal" vs. "What's Illegal?"

In the afternoon session, tensions between the prosecution and defense escalated. Although there had been minor clashes during the prosecution's examination when the defense raised objections, the confrontation peaked during the questioning about documents related to Samsung Bioepis's Nasdaq listing announcement method. The prosecution began reading the documents aloud without displaying them on the courtroom screen, prompting the defense to object. These documents had previously been withheld from evidence admission by the Hwawoo Law Firm defense team due to unclear sources.

Defense Counsel: Wait a moment. If you read the document aloud directly like that... Since it is unclear whether it was authored, reading the content and questioning based on it is no different from presenting it as evidence.

Prosecutor: The purpose is to verify the source. It appears to be a document the witness was involved in preparing, so we have no choice but to ask questions to confirm that.

Defense Counsel: Even if we concede that, asking if the witness was involved by only mentioning the title is one thing, but reading the entire document like this is illegal.

Prosecutor: On what grounds do you claim such questioning is illegal?

Defense Counsel: The prosecutor has gone too far. We have agreed to almost all evidence for cooperation. This is the only one withheld, and we will reconsider how to handle its evidentiary value later.

The dispute continued with both sides whispering among their teams. Then, unrelated defense lawyer Choi Chang-young stepped in. He pointed out, "Announcing the reading or keywords is the method of evidence investigation prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act. Reading the content while questioning is inappropriate." The prosecution retreated following Choi's remarks as a third party and decided not to use the document in the examination, resolving the situation for the time being.

Due to the prolonged prosecution examination, the defense's cross-examination did not take place that day. The court plans to summon Mr. Lee again on the 15th for the defense's cross-examination, followed by the prosecution's re-examination.

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