Lee Jae-yong, Choi Kang-wook Supreme Court ruling news, Supreme Court Third Division (Chief Justice Oh Seok-jun)

Lee Jae-yong acquitted - Criminal legal limits on management decisions

On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Court's Third Division confirmed the acquittal of Lee Jae-Yong, Chairman of Samsung Electronics, on charges of violating the Capital Markets Act and breach of duty. The case centered around the merger of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, as well as the accounting practices of Samsung Biologics. The court found that the purpose of the merger was not unreasonable as part of corporate management. Additionally, regarding the accounting practices, it concluded that there was no illegality when viewed in light of the relevant international accounting standards and practical practices at the time. In particular, the court emphasized that judicial intervention in evaluating the legitimacy of business judgments should be done with caution, and that punishment cannot follow unless intent and illegality are clearly proven. Regarding the accounting practices, attention was drawn to the fact that both Samsung Biologics' internal accounting team and external auditors reviewed the results in compliance with relevant standards. With all 19 charges declared not guilty, approximately five years of criminal proceedings came to an end. In this judgment, Supreme Court Justice Oh Seok-Jun highlighted the strict interpretation of the requirements for criminal punishment and clarified the autonomy of business actions and the rigor of proving intent.

Choi Gang-wook's conviction confirmed – a judgment that clarifies the limits of freedom of expression

The case of former lawmaker Choi Kang-wook, which was sentenced on the same day, revolved around charges of defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act. Choi posted on his social media suggesting the real name of a specific journalist and claimed "threatening reporting colluding with the prosecution," leading to a defamation lawsuit. The Supreme Court's third division determined that this post constituted the dissemination of false facts and that the intent was to harm the reputation of a specific individual. While freedom of expression should be protected, it was clarified that this freedom can be restricted if it infringes upon the rights of others. The first instance ruled not guilty, but the second instance recognized the falsehood and malicious intent, and the Supreme Court confirmed the guilty verdict, finding no legal misunderstanding in this judgment. Justice Oh emphasized that although "freedom of expression" is a constitutional right, there are responsibilities when it is based on falsehood or becomes a means of personal attack.

Characteristics of Justice Oh Seok-jun's Legal Reasoning

Supreme Court Justice Oh Seok-jun has dealt with various cases in lower courts and the Supreme Court, and his judgments tend to strictly apply legal standards according to the nature of the case. In criminal cases, he considers intention, illegality, and compliance with the elements of the offense as the most critical judgment criteria. He emphasizes the need to refrain from criminal intervention in business activities, as seen in the case of Lee Jae-yong, highlighting that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. On the other hand, in cases where freedom of expression is at issue, he prioritizes whether the expression is based on facts and examines whether the public interest purpose is clear. In the Choi Gang-wook case, he determined guilt by assessing the intent to disseminate false information and defame, going beyond mere expression of opinion. Justice Oh's approach contributes to enhancing legal stability and reliability.

Supreme Court Justice Oh Seok-jun's Past Rulings

Justice Oh Seok-jun has consistently demonstrated a commitment to procedural justice and proportionality in various rulings during his tenure. For instance, in a case where a bus driver embezzled 800 won of transportation income, he ruled that the dismissal was justified, regardless of the amount, because the trust between the employee and employer had been broken. In this case, he recognized the legitimacy of the dismissal based on the premise that, according to labor-management agreements, dismissal can occur irrespective of the amount involved. Additionally, in the case of a National Intelligence Service employee receiving sexual favors from a private contractor, although the occurrence of the sexual favors was acknowledged, he deemed the penalty of dismissal as excessive by societal standards, ruling that the disciplinary action should be revoked. Similar reasoning was applied in a case involving prosecutorial hospitality, where he also concluded that the disciplinary action was unlawful. Thus, his judgments prioritize procedural justice and legal grounds, focusing on delivering fair rulings.