'Samsung Union Dissolution Not Guilty' Former Chairman Lee Sang-hoon Receives 50 Million KRW Criminal Compensation

Seoul High Court. / Photo by Mun Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Lee Sang-hoon, former chairman of the Samsung Electronics board of directors, who was prosecuted on charges of participating in the dismantling of a subsidiary's labor union but was acquitted by the Supreme Court, will receive approximately 57 million KRW in criminal compensation.

According to the legal community on the 31st, the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 8 (Presiding Judges Bae Hyung-won, Lee Eui-young, Bae Sang-won) recently decided to pay Lee a total of 57.64 million KRW as compensation for detention and expenses. Criminal compensation is a system where the state partially compensates for damages during detention and attorney fees when innocence is confirmed after imprisonment.

Previously, Lee was prosecuted on charges of establishing and implementing a union dismantling strategy called the "Greenification operation" at the group level after a labor union was formed at Samsung Electronics Service, a subsidiary, in 2013.

The union dismantling strategy created by Samsung Group’s Future Strategy Office to enforce a "non-union management policy" reportedly included plans to forcibly close subcontractors with strong unions or impose disadvantages on union members.

The prosecution indicted a total of 32 people, including Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics Service corporations, and the first trial sentenced 26 people guilty on December 2019. Lee was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison and was detained in court.

However, Lee was acquitted in the second trial and released in August 2020, about eight months later. The appellate court ruled that the key evidence, the office hard disk, was illegally obtained and could not be used as evidence to prove the charges. At that time, the court stated, "If the evidence had been admissible, much of the original judgment would have been upheld," adding, "It should be noted that this does not mean the defendant was not involved or complicit."

The Supreme Court also ruled that this judgment was correct.

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