zoom in picture
On the 10th, Lee Jae-myung, representative of the Democratic Party, attends the Seongnam branch of the Suwon District Prosecutor’s Office regarding the suspected donation to Seongnam FC. / Photo Co-operation Institute
On the 10th, Lee Jae-myung, representative of the Democratic Party, appeared before the prosecution and was investigated in connection with the suspicion of sponsoring Seongnam FC. This is the first time that the current representative of the 1st opposition party has been investigated by the prosecution as a suspect. Prosecutors are weighing whether to seek an arrest warrant for Lee.
The Suwon District Prosecutor’s Office, Seongnam Branch 3rd Criminal Division (Chief Prosecutor Yoo Min-jong) summoned Lee as a suspect and investigated him that day. Representative Lee, who was the mayor of Seongnam and the owner of Seongnam FC, received requests from companies such as Doosan Engineering & Construction, Naver, and Cha Hospital from 2014 to 2018 to provide convenience, such as land use change and new construction permits, and paid about 17 billion won in exchange for Seongnam FC. I was accused of giving me gifts (bribing a third party under the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Certain Offenses). Bribery of a third party is a punishable offense where a public official accepts an improper solicitation in relation to his duties and causes a third party to offer a bribe instead.
The issues in the Seongnam FC case are whether CEO Lee asked companies to sponsor Seongnam FC, whether the companies asked CEO Lee to resolve pending issues, whether CEO Lee acknowledged pending issues the companies and instructed Seongnam City employees to resolve them, aa are the companies Whether or not the appropriate procedures were followed in the sponsorship process. As there are many cases of corporate sponsorship of civilian teams, the prosecution is working hard to prove how the usual sponsorship differs from the Seongnam FC case in terms of the circumstances before and after the sponsorship and the amount.
In September last year, the prosecution prosecuted a former Seongnam city government official and the former CEO of Doosan Engineering & Construction for the first time, and stated in the indictment that they had ‘conspired’ in the crime with the CEO Executive Lee. CEO Lee is said to have reviewed and approved the change in the use of the Jeongja-dong Doosan Construction site and the method of paying money to Seongnam FC. Prosecutors believe that Lee decided to contact companies with proposed issues individually to receive money when he had trouble securing money for the football team even though he declared that it was politically beneficial to hear that he had managed the Seongnam club well.
Lee has flatly denied the allegations. Representative Lee’s argument is that Seongnam FC only advertised the company and received money according to a legal agreement. The gift is not a reward for Seongnam City’s business convenience. In addition, the advertising contract is a sales activity by the executives and employees of Seongnam FC, and it is argued that CEO Lee, who was the mayor of Seongnam, was not involved. It is also argued that the change of use of the Doosan E&C site was not for the convenience of the company, but was part of ‘executive administration’. It is said to be a project to solve the scandal that has been neglected for almost 20 years, revitalize jobs and commercial areas, and help with tax revenue and finance in Seongnam.
Democratic Party of Korea representative Lee Jae-myung, who is suspected of the ‘Seongnam FC donation’, attends on the 10th as the Seongnam branch of the Suwon District Prosecutor’s Office in Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do./Photo by Correspondents
Third party bribery has more difficult requirements than simple bribery. Simple bribery only needs to prove ‘relevance to duties’, but third party bribery requires proof that there has been ‘unjust solicitation’. However, it is Supreme Court precedent that even if the content of the solicitation is not illegal or unreasonable, if ‘compensation’ has been exchanged, it is an improper solicitation.
A representative example of third party bribery is a case of government manipulation. At the request of former President Park Geun-hye, the prosecution indicted Park and others on charges of bribing a third party, alleging that Samsung provided subsidies to the Korea Winter Sports Donation Center run by Choi Seo-won (formerly known as Choi Soon). -sil), a close aide to Park. Jae-yong Lee, the vice chairman of Samsung Electronics at the time (current chairman), did not specifically ask Mr Park to help with the group succession work, but it was considered an implicit request in the sense that they were both aware of the succession work.
There is also a clear difference between the Seongnam FC event and the Gukjeong Nongdan event. The Choi Gifted and Talented Center was newly established at the time of the sponsorship, and the reality was unclear, but its operating entity Seongnam FC was revealed, which was transformed into a citizen’s club in 2014. The court ruled in the Gukjeong Nongdan case that Samsung’s support could not be considered to the gifted center as ‘pure social contribution activities’. It is true that Samsung has consistently supported winter sports, but unlike other support organizations, the Center for Gifted Children cannot be considered a normal public benefit organization. The fact that the amount of donations (1.628 billion won) was unusually large for supporting a specific organization was also taken into account. The amount is said to be similar to the amount that Samsung Electronics, the president of the Korea Ice Skating Federation, supports the ice skating federation annually (earning about 1.6 to 1.7 billion).
Initially, the prosecution noted Samsung’s contribution to the Mir Foundation and K-Sports Foundation for bribing a third party, but they were acquitted. The court ruled that Samsung, which had contributed to a number of public interest foundations, had only contributed in a general way.
Prosecutors are considering whether to seek an arrest warrant for Lee. Unlike former Seongnam city officials and the CEO of Doosan Engineering & Construction, who were charged without detention, some observers say there is a possibility of requesting an arrest warrant for CEO Lee. It is said that the prosecution may request an arrest warrant, citing the rationale that Lee, who denies the charges outright, may influence the statements of other related persons. However, since the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, which is investigating the alleged corruption in the Daejang-dong development project, has not yet investigated Lee, it is said that the timing of requesting an arrest warrant will be adjusted according to the investigation to the Office of the Central District Prosecutor. If the prosecution does not request an arrest warrant, it is very likely that the prosecution will complete the investigation by the end of this day and decide whether to prosecute within this month.
Even if the prosecution requests an arrest warrant, there are many hurdles to overcome before an arrest can be made. At the moment, a special session of the National Assembly is open in January, and permission from the National Assembly is required to arrest or detain a member of the National Assembly during the session. Just as the motion to arrest Representative Noh Woong-rae, who was accused of bribery, was rejected in the plenary meeting of the National Assembly last month, even if the motion to arrest Representative Lee is presented to the Assembly National. , it is very likely that the Democratic Party, which has a majority of the seats, will reject it.
> Activate JavaScript to write a comment in LiveRe.
