Hana Financial’s Ham Faces 3-Year Request After Acquittal Remand

3-Year Prison Term Sought for Ham Young-joo: What Investors Should Distinguish

For Hana Financial Group investors, this development signifies an unresolved legal process, not a final conviction. At the closing hearing in the remanded trial reported by Yonhap News Securities, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office sought a three-year prison term for Ham Young-joo on obstruction-of-business charges. However, the Supreme Court had previously remanded the same charges with a view toward acquittal. This is why the prosecution’s sentencing request should not be confused with the court’s verdict.

A remanded trial occurs when the Supreme Court overturns a lower-court ruling and sends the case back for reconsideration. What has been confirmed is the prosecution’s request; what has not been confirmed is the final ruling or sentencing date in the remanded trial. Although uncertainty surrounding Hana Financial Group remains, the decisive ruling has yet to be issued.

How the Hana Bank Hiring Case Progressed Through the Courts

Ham was indicted in June 2018 on allegations that he manipulated the scores of certain applicants during Hana Bank’s open recruitment of new employees in 2015 and 2016. The first ruling acquitted him of obstruction of business, but the next ruling reversed that decision and sentenced him to six months in prison, suspended for two years. These conflicting judgments on the same charge set the stage for the current remanded trial.

The Supreme Court remanded the obstruction-of-business charge with a view toward acquittal. It overturned the lower ruling because the earlier acquittal had been reversed without any reasonable change in circumstances. Although the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office again requested a three-year prison term at the closing hearing before the Seoul Western District Court, the prosecution’s request must be distinguished from the court’s eventual judgment.

Obstruction Charge and Finalized Fine Are Separate Matters

An easily overlooked point is that each charge is at a different stage of the legal process. The Supreme Court’s remand with a view toward acquittal concerns the obstruction-of-business charge. Separately, a guilty verdict and a fine of 3 million won were finalized for violating the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act by directing that the male-to-female hiring ratio be set at 4 to 1 ahead of Hana Bank’s 2015–2016 recruitment.

It is therefore inaccurate either to interpret the entire case as having ended in acquittal or to conclude from the three-year sentencing request alone that Ham has been convicted of obstruction of business. The finalized portion is the 3 million won fine, while the obstruction-of-business charge is under reconsideration. Keeping these two legal outcomes separate helps avoid overstating the significance of the news.

Key Issue Highlighted by Ham Young-joo’s Final Statement

In his final statement reported by Yonhap News Securities, Ham said he found it difficult to accept the earlier finding that he had instructed staff to admit an applicant after being told that the applicant had failed. He also said that while he had, on occasion, informed the head of human resources that someone had applied, he did not expect the applicant to be admitted in violation of established criteria.

Ham maintains that he had no reason to instruct the bank to admit an applicant who failed to meet the criteria. This is Ham’s contention, not a court ruling. The remaining issue is how the court distinguishes between merely relaying that someone had applied and directing that an applicant be admitted despite failing to meet the criteria.

Scope of the Impact on Hana Financial Group

• Hana Financial Group: The direct connection is that Ham serves as chairman. Because the sentencing request is not a final ruling, the available information provides no basis for calculating the impact on corporate earnings or the share-price outlook.
• Hana Bank: The bank conducted the 2015–2016 open recruitment at issue in the case. The facts provided cover only that recruitment process and the case’s progression through the courts; no information is available about the bank’s current hiring or business conditions.
• Financial industry sector: The companies directly connected to the case in the available information are Hana Financial Group and Hana Bank. No basis has been provided for extending the impact to or drawing comparisons with other financial institutions.

Potential Outcomes: Acquittal Rationale Upheld or a Different Ruling

The comparatively less burdensome outcome would be for the remanded court to uphold the Supreme Court’s view favoring acquittal. That would reduce the legal uncertainty surrounding the obstruction-of-business charge. It would not, however, alter the finalized 3 million won fine for violating the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act.

The alternative is for the remanded court to reach a different conclusion on the obstruction-of-business charge. In that event, investors would need to reassess the case based on the ruling itself. The current facts do not support treating either outcome as the base-case scenario or predicting the legal process following the prosecution’s sentencing request.

What Investors Should Monitor Next

• Final ruling in the remanded trial: The key inflection point is how the court rules on the obstruction-of-business charge, rather than the prosecution’s request for a three-year prison term.
• Ruling date: The available information does not specify a ruling date. Investors should avoid speculation and verify the confirmed schedule from the Seoul Western District Court.
• Outcome of each charge: The result of the remanded obstruction-of-business case should be assessed separately from the already finalized 3 million won fine for violating the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act.
• Subsequent proceedings: It has not been confirmed whether an appeal will follow the prosecution’s sentencing request. Any response should be based on the actual procedure after the next ruling is issued.

This article was automatically summarized and analyzed based on the original news report. View Original Article (Yonhap News)