Lee, Trump to hold summit on Aug. 25 in Washington
Lee is set to depart Seoul on Aug. 24 for the summit and a working lunch with Trump. He is to leave Washington on Aug. 26, Kang said, adding that further details about his itinerary will be announced later on.
Lee is to be accompanied by his wife Kim Hea Kyung.
The upcoming trip would be Lee's first as the South Korean president to the United States, the country's top ally, since his inauguration on June 4. It would also be Lee's second trip overseas, following his visit to Canada to attend a Group of Seven summit in early June.
Kang said the two leaders will discuss ways to advance the alliance in a "future-oriented, comprehensive and strategic" manner, in a briefing held in Seoul. South Korea and the US cemented their alliance following the armistice of the Korean War in 1953.
Lee's visit comes after Trump's announcement in late July that it had reached a trade deal with South Korea -- just before Washington's proposed Aug. 1 deadline -- to lower its tariffs on imported goods including automobiles and auto parts from 25 percent to 15 percent, while South Korea is expected to spend $350 billion on projects in the US including shipbuilding and to purchase $100 billion of energy imports.
Trump then hinted at inviting Lee to the White House in the near future.
Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, who also visited Washington in late July to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said the date for a summit between Lee and Trump was "being coordinated."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
2 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Over 9,200 cyberattacks hit South Korean military in 6 months
South Korea's military said it repelled more than 9,200 hacking attempts in the first six months of the year, up about 45 percent from the same period a year earlier, with most believed to be from North Korea. A total of 9,262 cyberattacks targeted the South Korean military from January to June in 2025, according to data provided to The Korea Herald Sunday by the office of Rep. Yu Yong-weon of the main opposition People Power Party. Specifically, 9,193 attempts were made to breach the military's official homepages, while the remaining 69 were cyber intrusion attempts through email hacking. No malicious code attacks were detected during the period, according to the data. The South Korean military said 'all cyberattacks were blocked and that no damage was inflicted,' Yu's office explained. The total number of attempted breaches — including homepage intrusions, malicious code and email hacking — was tallied at 6,146 in the first half of 2021, 4,943 in 2022, 6,805 in 2023, and 6,401 in 2024. This year's cyber attacks targeting the South Korean military surged, up 44.7 percent compared to the corresponding period last year. South Korea's Cyber Operations Command informed Yu's office that many of the attacks were attributed to North Korea. 'We cannot precisely identify the actors behind the cyber intrusion attempts, but it is presumed that the majority were conducted by North Korea in light of correlations between the countries where the routing IP addresses are located and the IPs used for intrusion attempts,' the command said without further details. 'The military is maintaining a firm cyber readiness posture by advancing its response system,' it added. Yu underscored that the 'fact that cyber intrusions targeting our military's internet network marked an all-time high is actually a grave warning sign.' 'Only one intrusion of the military network can cause fatal damage to the command-and-control system as well as critical information assets,' Yu said. 'Therefore, the military authorities should raise awareness through maintenance of the security and control system, regular exercises simulating cyber intrusions, and strengthening security education for military officers, and should come up with effective countermeasures,' he added. Yu called for the South Korean government to actively revise the law, including the establishment of a control tower for cybersecurity under the direct supervision of President Lee Jae Myung, to respond to advanced and sophisticated cyber threats at the pan-government level. Though fewer in number, attacks against military-adjacent companies have increased as well. The number of cyberattacks on South Korean defense industry companies reported to the military surged in 2024, according to data provided by Yu's office. The reported cases of cyberattacks were five in 2021, two in 2022, four in 2023, and 16 in 2024. However, Yu's office noted there are limitations in identifying the total number of cyber breach attempts on defense contractors, since they manage their systems independently under South Korea's Defense Technology Security Act. Article 13 of the act stipulates that the head of a targeted institution 'shall establish and operate a defense technology security system in order to protect defense technology.'
Korea Herald
2 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Korea rethinks breach of trust, its most serious corporate crime
Critics say vague rules, tough sentences chill investment, while others warn full repeal could enable abuse South Korea's criminal punishment for breach of trust is back in focus after lawmakers broadened directors' fiduciary duty beyond the company to include shareholders. The change, part of a Commercial Act amendment passed in July, has fueled concerns in the business community that it could open the door to excessive liability and criminal charges over disputed management decisions. In response, President Lee Jae Myung launched a task force on 'Rationalizing Economic Criminal Penalties,' with revision of breach of trust at the top of its agenda. 'A business misstep in Korea can land you in prison, and that chills investment,' Lee said. 'We must ask whether layering criminal sanctions, on top of economic and financial penalties, for breach of trust aligns with global norms.' Against global norms? Breach of trust applies when executives or employees violate their duty of good faith for personal gain or cause losses, and Korea is among the few countries to treat it as a crime with some of the toughest penalties. Korea regulates breach of trust under three statutes. The Criminal Act covers general and occupational cases, while the Commercial Act adds 'special breach of trust,' punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a 30 million won (about $22 million) fine. For cases exceeding 5 billion won, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes mandates at least five years in prison — the same minimum as for murder. Japan, Germany and France also criminalize breach of trust but apply it far more narrowly. Germany shields executives under a 'business judgment rule,' while Japan and France limit liability to cases with clear intent or misappropriation. The UK and US have no equivalent statute; instead, they rely on fraud or embezzlement laws, with civil courts settling most disputes. 'In Korea, even the owner of a one-person company can face criminal charges for using a corporate card on personal expenses,' said Kim Woo-jin, a business professor at Seoul National University. 'In the US, the same act would be neither a crime nor a civil case since you cannot sue yourself. Serious breaches should be punished, but much of this belongs in civil law. Korea treats it too harshly as a crime, with prosecutors wielding disproportionate power.' Korea's statute leaves 'act in violation of duty' undefined and applies broadly to any property benefit, subjecting even good-faith decisions that result in losses to scrutiny. Moreover, anyone can file a complaint, making annual cases top 2,000. Yet, roughly about one in 10 indictments results in a conviction, fueling criticism that prosecutors overreach, particularly against conglomerates. Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong was cleared in February over a 2015 merger, ending a decade-long case. Hanwha's Kim Seung-youn, CJ's Lee Jay-hyun and former KT chief Lee Suk-chae have also had charges dropped or sentences reduced after courts could not prove them guilty. Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho recently warned against prosecutorial overreach. 'Prosecutors have been criticized for fostering risk aversion by applying hindsight judgments to strategic decisions,' he said in his July inaugural speech. 'Such caution risks weakening management and slowing decision-making.' Even Lee Bok-hyun, former Financial Supervisory Service chief who once pursued high-profile breach-of-trust cases as a prosecutor, has argued the law "unjustly exposes all boardroom choices to criminal liability," a regime found nowhere else, he emphasized. "Management decisions to be resolved in the boardroom, not the courtroom," he said. Abolishment too premature At the time, Lee, the former FSS chief, argued the law could be repealed if directors' fiduciary duty were extended to shareholders, a change enacted in July. The amendment reignited calls within the corporate sector for scrapping breach of trust altogether. Yet while many agree the law needs significant reform, some remain cautious, warning full repeal is risky in Korea's conglomerate-dominated corporate environment, where large-scale abuses — especially self-dealing or third-party favoritism — could go unchecked. 'Many breach-of-trust cases arise from asset transfers between affiliates,' said lawyer Cheon Joon-bum, vice chair of the Korean Corporate Governance Forum. 'It's often difficult to determine whether such capital shifts were made in good faith for both the investing and receiving firms. In many instances, one company bears losses to support another, leaving unrelated stakeholders exposed.' Professor Kim also warned that abolition is premature, noting it could leave controlling shareholders' unfair decisions against minorities unchecked, even when losses are not immediate. Cheon went further, arguing that the problem lies in execution. 'Only about 10 percent of indicted cases end in conviction, not because there was no wrongdoing, but because prosecutors couldn't prove it,' he said. 'In the US, cases that can't be proven wouldn't even begin. Here, they drag on for years, only to end in acquittal. That's a loss not only for genuinely innocent companies, but for the credibility of the judicial system.' Experts point to the "business judgment rule,' used in Germany and the US, as a way forward. 'The key is ensuring fairness for all stakeholders. The rule shields directors when decisions affect all shareholders equally, even if the company incurs losses,' said Cheon. The government and ruling party are moving to embed the rule in the Criminal Act, with Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Kim Tae-nyeon already tabling a related bill. Yet Korea's breach-of-trust law is especially difficult to enforce because regulators, not boards, must prove misconduct. 'Regulators, as outsiders, struggle to obtain the documents needed to challenge management decisions. That burden makes it difficult to hold executives accountable and leaves most questionable transactions unpunished,' Cheon said. He stressed that easing criminal penalties must go hand in hand with stronger civil remedies. In the US, boards bear the burden of proving a deal's fairness in civil suits; in Korea, regulators shoulder it. Experts emphasize that legal reform alone will not suffice. 'Korea needs not only statutory change but also clearer internal procedures to prevent shareholder losses,' said Cheon. He pointed to Germany's "Konzern" system, which obligates corporate groups to safeguard minority shareholders in affiliate transactions before proceeding. Professor Kim added that Korea's recently expanded fiduciary duty to shareholders will remain hollow without a more active litigation culture. 'In the US and Europe, shareholder suits serve as routine checks on management. A comparable level of shareholder-driven litigation must take root in Korea as a precondition for easing breach-of-trust laws," said Kim. The government plans to unveil by year-end a reform package to 'rationalize' economic criminal penalties, including breach of trust. Urgent measures will be submitted to the National Assembly in September, with additional proposals finalized by year-end and aimed for passage in the first half of 2026.
Korea Herald
3 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Putin wins Ukraine concessions in Alaska but did not get all he wanted
MOSCOW (Reuters) -- In a few short hours in Alaska, Vladimir Putin managed to convince Donald Trump that a Ukraine ceasefire was not the way to go, stave off US sanctions, and spectacularly shatter years of Western attempts to isolate the Russian president. Outside Russia, Putin was widely hailed as the victor of the Alaska summit while at home, Russian state media cast the US president as a prudent statesman, even as critics in the West accused him of being out of his depth. Russian state media made much of the fact that Putin was afforded a military fly-over, that Trump waited for him on the red carpet, and then let the Russian president ride with him in the back of the "Big Beast," the US presidential limousine. "Western media are in a state that could be described as derangement verging on complete insanity," said Maria Zakharova, Russia's foreign minister spokesperson. "For three years, they talked about Russia's isolation, and today they saw the red carpet rolled out to welcome the Russian president to the United States," she said. But Putin's biggest summit wins related to the war in Ukraine, where he appears to have persuaded Trump, at least in part, to embrace Russia's vision of how a deal should be done. Trump had gone into the meeting saying he wanted a quick ceasefire and had threatened Putin and Russia's biggest buyer of its crude oil -- China -- with sanctions. Afterward, Trump said he had agreed with Putin that negotiators should go straight to a peace settlement and not via a ceasefire as Ukraine and its European allies had been demanding -- previously with US support. "The US president's position has changed after talks with Putin, and now the discussion will focus not on a truce, but on the end of the war. And a new world order. Just as Moscow wanted," Olga Skabeyeva, one of Russian state TV's most prominent talkshow hosts, said on Telegram. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saying Kyiv's embrace of the West had become a threat to its security, something Ukraine has dismissed as a false pretext for what it calls a colonial-style land grab. The war -- the deadliest in Europe for 80 years -- has killed or wounded well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of mostly Ukrainian civilians, according to analysts. The fact that the summit even took place was a win for Putin before it even started, given how it brought him in from the diplomatic cold with such pomp. Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court, accused of the war crime of deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine. Russia denies any wrongdoing, saying it acted to remove unaccompanied children from a conflict zone. Neither Russia nor the US are members of the court. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and a close Putin ally, said the summit had achieved a major breakthrough when it came to restoring US-Russia relations, which Putin had lamented were at their lowest level since the Cold War. "The mechanism for high-level meetings between Russia and the United States has been restored in its entirety," he said. But Putin did not get everything he wanted and it's unclear how durable his gains will be. For one, Trump did not hand him the economic reset he wanted -- something that would boost the Russian president at a time when his economy is showing signs of strain after more than three years of war and increasingly tough Western sanctions. Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign policy aide, said before the summit that the talks would touch on trade and economic issues. Putin had brought his finance minister and the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund all the way to Alaska with a view to discussing potential deals on the Arctic, energy, space and the technology sector. In the end, though, they didn't get a look in. Trump told reporters on Air force One before the summit started there would be no business done until the war in Ukraine was settled. It's also unclear how long the sanctions reprieve that Putin won will last. Trump said it would probably be two or three weeks before he would need to return to the question of thinking about imposing secondary sanctions on China, to hurt financing for Moscow's war machine. Nor did Trump -- judging by information that has so far been made public -- do what some Ukrainian and European politicians had feared the most and sell Kyiv out by doing a deal over the head of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy. Trump made clear that it was up to Zelenskyy as to whether he would agree -- or not --with ideas of land swaps and other elements for a peace settlement that the US president had discussed with Putin in Alaska. Although as Trump's bruising Oval Office encounter with Zelenskyy showed earlier this year, if Trump thinks the Ukrainian leader is not engaging constructively, he can quickly turn on him. Indeed, Trump was quick to start piling pressure on Zelenskyy, who is expected in Washington on Monday, saying after the summit that Ukraine had to a deal because, "Russia is a very big power, and they're not." "The main point is that both sides have directly placed responsibility on Kyiv and Europe for achieving future results in the negotiations," said Medvedev, who added that the summit showed it was possible to negotiate and fight at the same time. While deliberations continue, Russian forces are slowly but steadily advancing on the battlefield and threatening a series of Ukrainian towns and cities whose fall could speed up Moscow's quest to take complete control of the eastern region of Donetsk, one of four Ukrainian regions Russia claims as its own. Donetsk, some 25 percent of which remains beyond Russia's control, and the Luhansk region together make up the industrial Donbas region, which Putin has made clear he wants in its entirety. Putin told Trump he'd be ready to freeze the front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, two of the other regions he claims, if Kyiv agreed to withdraw from both Donetsk and Luhansk, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters. Zelenskyy rejected the demand, the source said. According to the New York Times, Trump told European leaders that Ukrainian recognition of Donbas as Russian would help get a deal done. And the US is ready to be part of security guarantees for Ukraine, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. Some Kremlin critics said it would be a mistake to credit Putin with too much success at this stage. "Russia has re-established its status and got dialogue with the US," said Michel Duclos, a French diplomat who formerly served in Moscow and who is an analyst at the Institut Montaigne think-tank. "But when you have a war on your hands and your economy is collapsing, these are limited gains." Russian officials deny the economy, which has been put on a war footing and has proved more resilient than the West forecast despite heavy sanctions, is collapsing. But they have acknowledged signs of overheating and have said the economy could enter recession next year unless policies are adjusted. "For Putin, economic problems are secondary to his goals, but he understands our vulnerability and the costs involved," said one source familiar with Kremlin thinking. "Both sides will have to make concessions. The question is to what extent. The alternative, if we want to defeat them militarily, is to mobilise resources more deeply and use them more skilfully, but we are not going down that road for various reasons," the person said.
