Responsibility Must Be Proven in Appeal Court

The key issue for the appeal court is whether responsibility for specific unlawful acts can be attributed personally to Mother Han

Hours after the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Hak Ja Han (한학자), leader of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, to two years in prison, Segye Ilbo religious affairs correspondent Jeong Seong-su (정성수) raises a broader question: what exactly should the appellate court be weighing when it reviews the case?

See part 2: State Power Must Not Override Religious Freedom

See also Special Prosecutor Appeal for Harsher Sentence

See also Mother Han Appeal Tests Prosecutorial Authority

See also Pompeo: Mother Han (83) Targeted for Her Beliefs

In his 31^st August column, “13-Year Demand, 2-Year Sentence: The Balance of the Appeal”, Jeong does not simply argue that Hak Ja Han – also called Mother Han – should be acquitted. His central concern is more fundamental. He questions whether the enormous gap between the 13-year sentence requested by the special prosecutor and the two-year sentence actually imposed by the court reveals that the prosecution initially portrayed the case as considerably more serious than what the evidence ultimately established.

More importantly, Jeong argues that the appeal should not be determined by political considerations, the reputation of the special prosecutor, or public attitudes toward the Family Federation. It should instead focus strictly on evidence, criminal responsibility and the legal standards for proving that Mother Han personally knew about and approved specific unlawful acts.

From a 13-year demand to a two-year sentence

Jeong begins by emphasizing the striking circumstances surrounding the verdict. Mother Han, 83, heard the sentence while wearing a hospital gown and sitting in a wheelchair. The court imposed two years in prison: one year for violating the Political Funds Act and another year for violations involving improper solicitation and occupational embezzlement.

For Family Federation members who had expected an acquittal, the decision was devastating.

Yet the sentence was dramatically lower than the 13 years sought by the special prosecutor. The prosecution had requested five years for the political-funds violations and another eight years for the other charges.

Jeong considers the request unusually severe, particularly because Mother Han is elderly, has no previous criminal record, and the case does not concern a violent crime. He also draws attention to the disparity between the sentences sought for the various defendants.

The prosecution requested four years for former lawmaker Kweon Seong-dong (권성동), who was accused of receiving 100 million won (in 2022, ca $77,000 USD) from the Family Federation side. It requested three years and six months for former World Headquarters Director-General Yoon Yeong-ho (윤영호), whom prosecutors portrayed as the person who directly planned and executed the overall activities.

Yet the prosecution sought 13 years for Mother Han.

That raises, Jeong suggests, a legitimate question: was her position as the supreme leader of the religious organization, and the symbolic significance attached to her as the alleged “peak” of religion–politics collusion, effectively being reflected in the severity of the requested punishment?

What the first-instance court actually found

The first-instance judgment was considerably narrower than the prosecution’s case.

The court acquitted Mother Han on some of the alleged “split donation” charges. It also dismissed certain charges concerning alleged destruction of evidence and embezzlement connected with funds allegedly provided to politicians overseas, concluding that these matters fell outside the special prosecutor’s legally defined investigative mandate.

The court further rejected the argument that transferring church funds to prepare split political donations automatically constituted embezzlement.

For Jeong, this is significant because it demonstrates that the court imposed legal limits on the special prosecutor’s investigative authority. The Constitution’s principle of due process, he stresses, means that the statutory mandate of a special prosecutor cannot simply be expanded whenever investigators encounter additional allegations.

At the same time, Jeong is careful not to characterize the two-year sentence as equivalent to an acquittal. The court did find Mother Han responsible, together with others, for important parts of the prosecution’s case. In particular, it recognized her participation in and approval of the 100 million won (in 2022, ca $77,000 USD) payment to Kweon, most of the split political donations, and the provision of luxury items such as a handbag and necklace to former First Lady Kim Keon-hee (김건희).

Nevertheless, the enormous reduction from 13 years to two is important. It suggests, in Jeong’s view, that the scale of criminality initially presented by the special prosecutor and Mother Han‘s personal responsibility for it were substantially reduced during the trial.

The crucial question: what did Mother Han actually know?

This becomes the central issue Jeong wants the appeals court to examine.

There is an important distinction, he argues, between a religious leader approving the general direction of an organization’s external activities and that same leader knowingly approving the specific unlawful methods allegedly used to pursue those activities.

In other words, even if Mother Han approved contacts with politicians or broader political engagement by people around her, does that necessarily establish that she personally knew about and approved:

• the delivery of 100 million won (in 2022, ca $77,000 USD) in cash,
• political donations made using other people’s names,
• or the provision of expensive gifts to a political figure’s spouse?

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Jeong therefore asks what evidence exists beyond the testimony of Yoon Yeong-ho (윤영호). Are there documents, financial records, correspondence or other objective evidence demonstrating that Mother Han was informed about the specific transactions and knowingly approved them?

And, crucially, have contradictions between testimony and objective records actually been resolved?

This is especially important because the court treated Yoon as the person who played the leading role in planning the overall activities. If Yoon was the principal organizer, the prosecution still needs to establish the separate proposition that Mother Han possessed the specific knowledge of a crime and the criminal intent required to make her a joint principal offender.

That distinction is at the heart of the appeal.

Continued in part 2: State Power Must Not Override Religious Freedom

See also Special Prosecutor Appeal for Harsher Sentence

See also Mother Han Appeal Tests Prosecutorial Authority

See also Pompeo: Mother Han (83) Targeted for Her Beliefs

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Evidence on the scales. Illustration: ChatGPT, 3^rd September 2026

Related to responsibility must be proven: Mother Han: The Dangers of Guilt by Position

Related to responsibility must be proven: Mother Han: Beyond One Trial – the Wider Stakes

Related to responsibility must be proven: At Issue: Religions Taking Reality Seriously

Also related to responsibility must be proven: Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

Also related to responsibility must be proven: State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

More, related to responsibility must be proven: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

And more, related to responsibility must be proven: Official Statement on Recent Media Coverage

Also related to responsibility must be proven: Defense Challenges Core Claims of Indictment

And also related to responsibility must be proven: Unificationism Emerging as a World Religion

More, related to responsibility must be proven: Decline of Family Values Creates Social Crisis

And more, related to responsibility must be proven: Unificationism, Industry, and Cold War Survival

And more, related to responsibility must be proven: Movement Promoting Family as National Solution

Yet more, related to responsibility must be proven: “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill

Still more, related to responsibility must be proven: Mother Han Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2026

Also related to responsibility must be proven: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to responsibility must be proven: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to responsibility must be proven: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to responsibility must be proven: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

And more, related to responsibility must be proven: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to responsibility must be proven: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to responsibility must be proven:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to responsibility must be proven: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

Related to responsibility must be proven: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to responsibility must be proven: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

 Still more, related to responsibility must be proven: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to responsibility must be proven: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to responsibility must be proven: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to responsibility must be proven: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to responsibility must be proven: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial