The arrest of Lee Jae-yong, the vice chairman of Samsung Electronics, on bribery and other charges Friday shocked the nation.

Lee is the first head of Samsung to be arrested in its 79-year history. He was jailed as a suspect in connection with the corruption scandal involving President Park Geun-hye and her confidante Choi Soon-sil.

The court’s decision sparked a mixed reaction, with businesses worried that it would hamper their activities and that Korea’s corporate reputation would be tarnished.

In the political circle, the ruling Liberty Korea Party called for an evidential judgment when Lee is tried, while the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea -- which has vowed to reform family-owned conglomerates, or chaebol in Korea -- criticized corruption between politics and businesses. The minor opposition People’s Party demanded Lee confess everything and apologize to the nation.

Reactions vary, however, comments assuming his guilt has already been proven are undesirable. It is better to view the arrest of the de facto Samsung head without prejudice against chaebol.

In approving the detention of Lee, the court cited new evidence, reportedly datebooks belonging to An Chong-bum, Park’s former senior secretary jailed as a suspect involved in the scandal.

An made notes of Park’s instructions in his datebooks, with some notes indicating Lee asked Park for special favors.

“President Park made an instruction to help Lee, who asked for help in his efforts to take Samsung Biologics public, ease environmental regulations and convert Samsung Life Insurance into a financial holding company,” a member of an independent counsel team quoted An as saying to interrogators.

The court appears to have accepted the team’s argument that Lee asked for special favors from Park and that he gave a large amount of money to Choi as a quid pro quo.

But Samsung argues it contributed money to two nonprofit foundations controlled by Choi and that it funded her daughter’s equestrian training, because of her coercion, not because it wanted special favors. It also argues Lee did not ask for favors during his one-to-one meetings with Park.

Now it is the judiciary court’s job to establish the rights and the wrongs of the disputed matter. Suspects are arrested for the convenience of interrogation, but being arrested does not mean that someone has been proven guilty.

Once a trial begins, prosecutors and lawyers should prove or disprove evidence rigorously enough to invalidate presumptions or reasonable doubt. The point of contention in the trial of Lee is expected to be whether he really requested favors from Park.

Just because Lee heads a conglomerate does not mean he should be exempted from arrests. He should not be treated like a scapegoat either. The owners of large companies are as equal as other members of the public before the law. Suspects should be judged impartially, regardless of whether they are the heads of chaebol or ordinary citizens.

The arrest of Lee stems from Park, who sought business donations to the foundations in question.

Businesses would find it hard to refuse requests made by the powers that be, but an excessive response on their part -- whether voluntarily or under coercion -- to such requests may arouse suspicions about the cozy ties between political power and businesses.

The court’s decision to arrest Lee has given momentum to the independent counsel team, which has tried in vain to search the presidential office and interrogate Park.

Eyes are again on whether Park will face interrogation. Although she argues there was no bribery involved, the arrest of Lee may be disturbing to Park.

Considering that the independent investigation has reached the point of arresting Lee, the questioning of Park comes as the next reasonable step.

The special prosecutors suspect Park and Choi are bribery accomplices. Questioning Park is needed to complete their investigation into the scandal.

Park is reportedly considering facing the questioning, but she should not refuse it this time.