Yoon’s Independence Put at Center of Case

Defense points out Mother Han’s leadership does not mean responsibility for every act, as Yoon’s independence in decision-making as executive director

Part 4 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 3: Defense Mounts Broad Challenge to State’s Case

See also No Proof Mother Han Linked to Political Funding

See also New Case: Claims of Political Mobilization

The first three articles in this series have examined specific elements of Hak Ja Han‘s defense: disputed timelines, conflicting accounts concerning luxury gifts, and challenges to the legality and reliability of the prosecution’s evidence.

The Family Federation‘s 6^th August statement, however, ultimately makes a broader argument.

At its heart is a question about responsibility: was Hak Ja Han (한학자) – also called Mother Han – personally directing the political, financial and business activities now attributed to her, or were those matters being handled independently by senior executives such as former World Headquarters Director Yoon Yeong-ho (윤영호)?

The defense says the latter.

A religious leader or an executive decision-maker?

According to the 5^th August Munhwa Ilbo (문화일보) report, Mother Han‘s lawyers told the court during closing arguments that she was fundamentally a religious leader and that administrative and financial affairs were handled by Yoon.

The Family Federation‘s 6^th August statement makes this distinction central to its entire defense.

The argument is not that Mother Han had no authority within the organization. Rather, the defense says that religious leadership should not automatically be equated with personal responsibility for every administrative or financial action carried out by senior staff.

This becomes particularly important if the prosecution’s case depends on proving that Yoon acted on Mother Han‘s explicit instructions.

The defense argues that there is no sufficient direct evidence – such as a contemporaneous written instruction, recording or other objective document – establishing that she personally ordered the alleged political payments and gifts.

Instead, it says the prosecution has relied heavily on Yoon‘s testimony and on inferences drawn from the importance of the activities involved.

“It must have been reported”

The Family Federation describes what it regards as a fundamental weakness in the Special Prosecutor’s reasoning.

According to the Federation, the prosecution has essentially assumed that because a particular project or transaction was important, it must have been reported to Hak Ja Han and must therefore have been undertaken on her instructions.

The defense argues that this is not sufficient in a criminal trial.

In its view, prosecutors must establish the defendant’s involvement through tangible evidence rather than reasoning that an important activity would “naturally” have required the leader’s approval.

This argument connects the different issues examined in the previous three articles. (See article 1, article 2, article 3)

The defense points to the disputed dates of the alleged 100 million won (in 2022 ca. US$ 77,000) report, the access records concerning the alleged morning meeting, the changing accounts of the Chanel handbag, the chronology of the Graff necklace and Yoon‘s alleged failure to inform Mother Han about his meeting with then-President-elect Yoon Suk-yeol (윤석열).

The Federation says these examples all point in the same direction: Yoon Yeong-ho was capable of acting independently, and his later testimony should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that Mother Han ordered his actions.

The defense’s portrayal of Yoon

The Federation’s statement goes further by presenting Yoon as someone who may have had substantial personal interests of his own.

It alleges that his lifestyle was far more expensive than would normally be expected from his official salary and points to luxury vehicles, expensive accommodation, private-jet travel and Chanel handbags.

The defense interprets this as evidence of possible personal financial misconduct and argues that Yoon consequently had a powerful incentive to transfer responsibility to his superior.

The statement also claims that Yoon continued pursuing aspects of the MPP project (The Mekong River Peace Park project) for personal and family interests even after leaving the Family Federation.

Again, these are defense allegations, not established findings. Their significance lies in how the defense uses them to challenge the prosecution’s assumption that Yoon had no reason to give false or self-serving testimony.

The question of Mother Han‘s health

The final part of the Family Federation‘s argument is different in character. It concerns Hak Ja Han herself.

According to the Federation statement, Mother Han is 83 years old and suffers from severe visual impairment. The statement says that she is legally blind in both eyes due to exudative macular degeneration and end-stage glaucoma [See editor’s note 1 below]. Having also undergone atrial fibrillation [See editor’s note 2 below] surgery and shoulder joint replacement surgery, she requires assistance with some everyday activities.

Her lawyers therefore asked the court to allow her to exercise her right to defend herself without being detained.

This argument should be distinguished from the question of guilt. The defense is essentially making two separate appeals: one concerning whether the prosecution has proved the charges, and another concerning the conditions under which an elderly defendant should be able to participate in her defense.

“When in doubt, in favor of the accused”

The Family Federation concludes its statement by invoking the legal principle in dubio pro reo, commonly translated as “when in doubt, in favor of the accused.”

The principle is related to the broader presumption of innocence and the requirement that criminal guilt be established to the applicable standard of proof.

The defense argues that this principle is particularly important in the Mother Han case because, in its view, the prosecution’s evidence contains several unresolved problems.

According to the Federation, key testimony conflicts with documentary records and timelines; a substantial quantity of evidence was allegedly obtained unlawfully; and the central prosecution witness could not be effectively cross-examined.

From the defense’s perspective, these problems accumulate rather than stand alone.

The defense’s overall theory

Taken together, the four parts in this series on the Family Federation‘s 6^th August statement present a consistent theory of the case.

The defense does not merely argue that individual pieces of evidence are mistaken. It argues that the prosecution has constructed a picture of Mother Han as personally directing activities that were, in reality, carried out by Yoon and other executives.

The defense says Yoon sometimes acted independently, that his subsequent testimony contains important contradictions, and that the prosecution has relied too heavily on assumptions about what a religious organization‘s leader must have known or authorized.

The prosecution, by contrast, maintains that its evidence supports the charges against Mother Han.

The Seoul Central District Court will ultimately have to decide between these competing interpretations.

What is at stake on 31^st August?

The 31^st August verdict will therefore involve more than the credibility of one witness.

The court will have to assess the relationship between Mother Han and Yoon Yeong-ho (윤영호), the reliability of Yoon‘s testimony, the significance of documentary and physical evidence, the legality of evidence-gathering procedures, and whether the prosecution has established Mother Han‘s personal responsibility for acts defined as criminal.

For the Family Federation, the conclusion is clear: when the prosecution’s direct evidence is disputed by objective records and when reasonable doubt remains concerning the defendant’s personal involvement, the court should acquit.

Whether that argument persuades the judges remains to be seen.

For Mother Han, the answer will come on 31^st August, when the Seoul Central District Court is scheduled to deliver its first-instance judgment.

NB. This article presents and explains the arguments made by Mother Han‘s defense team and the Family Federation. It does not independently establish the truth of the allegations concerning Yoon Yeong-ho, the MPP project or the legality of the evidence. The prosecution’s position and the court’s eventual assessment may differ substantially from the defense’s interpretation.

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

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

See part 3: Defense Mounts Broad Challenge to State’s Case

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?

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Yoon Yeong-ho responsible for executive actions, Mother Han as religious leader. Illustration: ChatGPT, 12^th August 2026.

[Editor’s note 1: End-stage glaucoma refers to advanced glaucoma in which extensive, usually irreversible damage has occurred to the optic nerve. The optic nerve carries visual information from the eye to the brain, and glaucoma progressively destroys its nerve fibers, typically because of damage associated with elevated intraocular pressure.

In end-stage disease, vision is severely reduced, often with a very restricted visual field. A person may retain only a small central or peripheral area of vision, while much of the surrounding field is permanently lost. In the most advanced cases, glaucoma can result in near-total or total blindness.

Glaucoma-related optic-nerve damage cannot currently be reversed. Treatment therefore focuses on preserving whatever vision remains, usually by lowering intraocular pressure through medications, laser treatment, or surgery. Regular monitoring is important because further damage may occur even when symptoms are not obvious.]

[Editor’s note 2: Mother Han‘s arrhythmia has been diagnosed as atrial fibrillation (AFib), which is the most common type of irregular heart rhythm (arrhythmia). Normally, the heart’s electrical system makes the upper chambers (atria) contract in an organized way, pumping blood into the lower chambers (ventricles).

In atrial fibrillation, the electrical signals in the atria become rapid and chaotic, causing the atria to quiver instead of contracting effectively. One key feature of atrial fibrillation is an irregular and often rapid heartbeat. Patients may feel palpitations, fluttering, or pounding in the chest. The irregular heart rhythm may cause an inefficient blood flow from the atria to the ventricles and an increased risk of blood clots forming in the atria, which can travel to the brain and cause a stroke.]

Related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Mother Han: The Dangers of Guilt by Position

Related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Mother Han: Beyond One Trial – the Wider Stakes

Related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: At Issue: Religions Taking Reality Seriously

Also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

Also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

And also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

More, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

And more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Official Statement on Recent Media Coverage

Also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Defense Challenges Core Claims of Indictment

And also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Unificationism Emerging as a World Religion

More, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Decline of Family Values Creates Social Crisis

And more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Unificationism, Industry, and Cold War Survival

And more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Movement Promoting Family as National Solution

Yet more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill

Still more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Mother Han Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2026

Also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

And more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

Related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Scholar Questions Secrecy in Dissolution Case

And more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

 Still more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to Yoon’s independence at center of case: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial