The Supreme Court has upheld a one-year prison sentence for the chairman of a KOSPI-listed company, surnamed Lee, who was indicted on charges of helping Lee Ki-hoon, the former vice chairman of Sambu Construction (001470) and a central figure in a stock manipulation case, evade arrest.
The Supreme Court's Third Division, with Justice Eom Sang-pil as the presiding judge, on the 22nd finalized the lower court ruling that sentenced Lee to one year in prison on charges including harboring a fugitive.
A personal assistant surnamed Choi, who took part in the crime under Lee's instructions, received a final fine of 5 million won.
Lee and Choi are accused of providing a vehicle and communication devices to move the former Sambu Construction vice chairman to a hideout after he fled in July last year ahead of a court hearing on an arrest warrant. Investigators found that the two supplied him with a mobile data device, a USIM card and a hideout, and arranged a driver for him while he was on the run.
The court of first instance found Lee guilty on all charges and sentenced him to one year and six months in prison. It described the chairman as "the principal offender in this case, who drew multiple people into it," saying the defendant "actively harbored and helped the former vice chairman escape, bringing others into the scheme even after confirming the former vice chairman's intent to flee."
The appellate court reduced Lee's sentence to one year, taking into account that the flight enabled by the chairman's actions lasted only four days and that the defendant received no compensation for the crime. The court said this conduct "resulted in obstructing investigative agencies, including the team led by special counsel Min Joong-ki, forcing them to devote considerable manpower and time to locating the former vice chairman," adding that the case was "highly blameworthy."
The Supreme Court left the lower court's judgment intact. It ruled that the appellate court had not "exceeded the limits of free evaluation of evidence by violating the rules of logic and experience without conducting the necessary review," and that there was "no error affecting the judgment through misapprehension of the law on the establishment of the crime of harboring a fugitive, joint principal liability for aiding a fugitive's escape or the principle of evidence-based trial, or through contradictory reasoning."
