Supreme Court Confirms Prison Sentence for Former CEO of Haeduk Powerway, an Optimus Affiliate

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The former CEO of Haeduck Powerway, an affiliate of Optimus Asset Management (hereinafter Optimus), has been sentenced to prison for fraud during the company's acquisition process.

According to the legal community on the 12th, the Supreme Court's 1st Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) recently upheld the original sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment for Lee, former CEO of Haeduck Powerway (56), who was indicted on charges of fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes.

Haeduck Powerway, a ship parts company, was acquired by former CEO Lee in 2018, and later ownership was transferred to Optimus. After being acquired by Optimus, Haeduck Powerway invested 37 billion KRW of company funds into Optimus, raising concerns about a 'capital-free merger and acquisition.'

Lee was prosecuted on charges of fraud for promising victim Mr. A that he would transfer management rights if he invested acquisition funds when acquiring Haeduck Powerway, but failed to transfer the management rights.

In the first trial, Lee was acquitted.

At that time, the court stated the reason for acquittal, saying, "Although there are some unclear aspects and suspicious circumstances in the defendant's claims, it cannot be considered sufficiently proven to recognize the charges as guilty."

However, the second trial recognized Lee's guilt for 22.3 billion KRW out of the total 28.7 billion KRW received from Mr. A's side, excluding amounts with unclear purposes, and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment, ordering his immediate detention.

The court stated, "From the initial stage of acquiring Haeduck Powerway, the defendant appears to have conspired with Optimus advisor Mr. Park (deceased in 2019) and, as parties to the acquisition transaction, concluded a series of contracts including stock purchase agreements, investment attraction agreements, and joint management contracts." It added, "Considering the circumstances before and after, the defendant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not fulfilling the obligations initially agreed upon with the victim, making it difficult to accept the original court's judgment as is."

The Supreme Court found no legal errors in the second trial's judgment and confirmed the sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.

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