Defense Mounts Broad Challenge to State’s Case

Hak Ja Han defense raises evidence and due-process concerns presenting broad challenge to the special prosecutors’ case

Part 3 of a 4-part series on the Hak Ja Han trial

See part 1: How Reliable Is the Prosecution’s Key Witness?

See part 2: Yoon’s Changing Accounts Challenged by Defense

See part 4: Yoon’s Independence Put at Center of Case

With the first-instance verdict in the trial of Family Federation President Hak Ja Han (한학자) – also called Mother Han – scheduled for 31^st August, her defense team is challenging not only the credibility of former World Headquarters Director Yoon Yeong-ho (윤영호) but also the way the Special Prosecutor’s Office obtained and presented evidence.

See also No Proof Mother Han Linked to Political Funding

See also New Case: Claims of Political Mobilization

See also S Korea’s Special Prosecutors: A Political Tool?

In its 6^th August statement responding to a 5^th August Munhwa Ilbo report, the Family Federation argues that the prosecution’s case suffers from two fundamental problems. First, it says that important testimony from Yoon could not be properly tested through cross-examination. Second, it claims that a substantial portion of the prosecution’s documentary evidence was obtained outside the scope of the relevant search warrant.

These are legal arguments rather than simply disputes over the facts of individual incidents.

Did the investigation go beyond its authorized scope?

According to Munhwa Ilbo, Mother Han‘s lawyers argued during closing arguments that the Special Prosecutors had exceeded the legally authorized scope of its investigation.

The defense maintains that investigators initially had a warrant relating to alleged luxury gifts to former First Lady Kim Keon-hee (김건희) but subsequently seized material concerning other matters, including the alleged 100 million won (in 2022 ca. US$ 77,000) payment to former lawmaker Kweon Seong-dong (권성동).

The Family Federation’s statement develops this argument considerably further.

It says that the prosecution submitted 3,410 pieces of evidence, of which 1,619 – approximately 47.5 percent – were allegedly obtained outside the scope of the warrant.

The defense therefore asks the court to exclude those materials from consideration.

The issue is important because a search warrant does not normally give investigators unlimited authority to seize anything they happen to discover. The warrant specifies what investigators are authorized to search for and, depending on the circumstances, what material may be seized.

The defense’s argument is essentially that evidence concerning separate alleged crimes cannot automatically be gathered under a warrant issued for a different investigation.

Whether the evidence was in fact obtained unlawfully, and what consequences that would have for the case, are matters for the court to determine.

The cross-examination dispute

A second major issue concerns Yoon‘s testimony itself.

Yoon has become an important prosecution witness, but according to the Family Federation, he invoked his right to remain silent when the defense attempted to question him about several key allegations.

The Federation says this included questions concerning the alleged 100 million won payment to Kweon, the division of political contributions, gifts to Kim Keon-hee (김건희) and foreign funds.

The defense argues that this creates a serious problem. If Yoon‘s testimony is being used as direct evidence against Mother Han, the defense needs a meaningful opportunity to challenge his account in court.

The Family Federation cites South Korean Supreme Court precedents, including the Cho Yang-eun (조양은) case, to argue that testimony which cannot be meaningfully subjected to cross-examination may have limited or no admissibility as evidence under the relevant circumstances.

The precise application of those precedents to this case will ultimately be a matter for the court.

The basic principle, however, is relatively straightforward: accused persons should have an effective opportunity to challenge important evidence being used against them.

The question of Yoon’s credibility

The defense also attacks Yoon‘s credibility on broader grounds.

The Family Federation statement says that Yoon’s lifestyle appeared inconsistent with his official income. It alleges that, despite a reported annual pre-tax salary of approximately 150 million won (in 2022 ca. US$ 116,000), he used expensive cars, luxury hotel suites, expensive airline tickets and private jets.

The Federation further refers to the discovery of 12 Chanel handbags at the residence of a close associate.

The defense interprets these circumstances as evidence that Yoon had a strong personal motive to minimize his own responsibility and shift blame toward Mother Han.

This is an important distinction in the defense’s argument. It is not simply claiming that Yoon made mistakes. It is suggesting that he had a reason to give testimony that would benefit himself.

The prosecution, however, has not accepted the defense’s characterization of Yoon’s motives.

The MPP project

The Family Federation’s statement also raises a separate issue concerning what it calls the MPP project (The Mekong River Peace Park project).

According to the Federation, the Special Prosecutor interpreted the Federation‘s religious concept of “National Restoration” [See editor’s note below] as evidence of a political or church-state project and used this interpretation to connect Mother Han to activities attributed to Yoon.

The defense offers a very different explanation.

It alleges that Yoon had effectively turned the MPP project into a personal enterprise, pursuing financial and political opportunities for himself and relatives. The Federation refers to claims concerning Cambodian citizenship, payments to local politicians and efforts to obtain exclusive casino rights.

It also says that Yoon continued pursuing the project through personal communications even after leaving the Family Federation.

These are serious allegations, but they form part of the Federation‘s own characterization of the evidence and go beyond the narrower issues summarized in the 5^th August Munhwa Ilbo report.

Three layers of the defense challenge

The significance of the defense’s arguments becomes clearer when they are viewed together.

The lawyers are effectively asking the court to examine three separate questions:

1. Was the evidence lawfully obtained?
2. Can Yoon‘s testimony be considered sufficiently reliable when his accounts are disputed and his cross-examination was limited?
3. Does the remaining evidence actually establish that Mother Han personally ordered or authorized the alleged acts?

This means that the defense is not relying on one alleged contradiction or one disputed document.

Instead, it is challenging the prosecution’s case at several levels – the legality of the investigation, the admissibility of evidence, the credibility of a central witness and the connection between that witness’s actions and Mother Han herself.

The significance for the 31^st August verdict

The court is not being asked simply to decide whether Yoon made statements that were inconsistent.

It must determine what evidence can legally be considered, how reliable the admissible evidence is, and whether the evidence as a whole proves Mother Han‘s personal responsibility for acts deemed criminal to the standard required in a criminal case.

For the defense, these questions are closely connected. If substantial evidence is excluded and Yoon‘s testimony is found unreliable or insufficiently tested, the prosecution’s case could be significantly weakened.

That is the defense’s argument.

See also No Proof Mother Han Linked to Political Funding

See also New Case: Claims of Political Mobilization

See also S Korea’s Special Prosecutors: A Political Tool?

Whether the court agrees will become clear when the Seoul Central District Court delivers its first-instance verdict on 31^st August.

This article summarizes arguments presented by Hak Ja Han‘s defense team and the Family Federation, together with matters reported by the South Korean daily Munhwa Ilbo. Claims concerning unlawfully obtained evidence, Yoon Yeong-ho‘s motives and the MPP project are presented as defense allegations and should not be understood as established findings of the court.

Continued in part 4: Yoon’s Independence Put at Center of Case

See part 1: How Reliable Is the Prosecution’s Key Witness?

See part 2: Yoon’s Changing Accounts Challenged by Defense

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Broad challenge to state’s case. Illustration: ChatGPT, 10^th August 2026.

[Editor’s note: In the context of Hak Ja Han and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), “national restoration” (국가복귀, 국가복원, or related terms often translated as “restoration of the nation”) is primarily a religious and providential concept, not simply a political one.

The challenge – and the point raised above – is that prosecutors and the defense appear to disagree about whether references to “national restoration” should be understood as religious objectives or as political activities.

When Hak Ja Han speaks of “national restoration”, she is generally referring to the goal of Unificationism to transform a nation so that it reflects God’s ideal and becomes part of the realization of Cheonil-guk (Kingdom of Heaven), rather than simply winning political influence or supporting particular politicians. Whether specific activities undertaken in pursuit of that goal crossed into political lobbying is precisely what seems to be contested in the proceedings described above.]

Related to broad challenge to state’s case: Mother Han: The Dangers of Guilt by Position

Related to broad challenge to state’s case: Mother Han: Beyond One Trial – the Wider Stakes

Related to broad challenge to state’s case: At Issue: Religions Taking Reality Seriously

Also related to broad challenge to state’s case: Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

Also related to broad challenge to state’s case: State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

And also related to broad challenge to state’s case: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

More, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

And more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Official Statement on Recent Media Coverage

Also related to broad challenge to state’s case: Defense Challenges Core Claims of Indictment

And also related to broad challenge to state’s case: Unificationism Emerging as a World Religion

More, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Decline of Family Values Creates Social Crisis

And more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Unificationism, Industry, and Cold War Survival

And more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Movement Promoting Family as National Solution

Yet more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill

Still more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Mother Han Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2026

Also related to broad challenge to state’s case: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

And more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to broad challenge to state’s case:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

Related to broad challenge to state’s case: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

 Still more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to broad challenge to state’s case: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to broad challenge to state’s case: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to broad challenge to state’s case: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to broad challenge to state’s case: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial