Report on the 23rd Trial of President Han①（2026-05-01）

[최종근]

[Report on the 23rd Trial of President Han① — “The Church’s Perspective” vs. “The Believers Solidarity’s Perspective” on Jeong Won-ju’s Testimony (2026-05-01)]

At the 23rd trial of President Han Hak-ja, held on April 28, 2026, witness examination of Jeong Won-ju was conducted. However, on the same day, verdicts related to lawmaker Kwon Seong-dong and Kim Keon-hee were delivered, drawing media attention away from this trial, which consequently received little coverage.

Nevertheless, for members of the Unification Church, this trial can be said to have been of the utmost importance.

Accordingly, on May 1, 2026, the Church issued an official statement titled “Extension of Suspension of Detention and Status of Trial Proceedings” through the “Hyojeong Briefing.” Although the document was issued under the name of Vice President Kim Dong-yeon, it can effectively be regarded as the official position of the Church.

https://www.ffwp.org/list/blank_view.php?menuKey=106&numberKey=27592&page=1

구속집행정지 연장과 공판 진행 상황

◆ Extension of Suspension of Detention

According to the “Hyojeong Briefing,” the extension of the suspension of detention was made prior to the April 28 trial, after the court confirmed President Han’s medical condition and indicated that “if treatment has not been completed, an extension request should be submitted.” The defense counsel then submitted a pre-prepared request for extension.

On April 27, President Han’s legal team had applied for bail, but instead of granting bail, the court approved the suspension of detention.

In response, from the night of the 28th, messages such as
“Heavenly Parent! True Parents have worked a miracle. Thank you.”
spread among believers. The Church explained this as “a grace of protection from Heaven and a precious result of the devotion and prayers of the members.”

https://imnews.imbc.com/news/2026/society/article/6819093_36918.html

법원, 통일교 한학자 구속집행정지 한 달 연장‥"건강 악화 사유"

On the other hand, the [Unification Church Corruption Eradication Monitoring Committee] views the court’s decision to grant the suspension of detention as a measure to carry the case into a first-instance verdict while keeping President Han technically under detention.

As a result, President Han has remained under suspension of detention for more than two months, raising concerns that the case may proceed to a Supreme Court decision without any opportunity for bail.

◆ Intentions Attributed to the Church Leadership

It is believed that one objective of the Church leadership is to control visitors by keeping President Han in the hospital, thereby preventing unfavorable trial developments from being conveyed to her.

Another possible objective is to prevent President Han from directly confirm‎ing the content of Jeong Won-ju’s testimony.

It should also be noted that President Han’s legal team consists of 22 attorneys, and their compensation is based on hourly billing, meaning that the longer the trial continues, the greater the cost.

During the trial, witness examinations that appear unnecessary have been conducted for extended periods. If this is a strategy by the Church to prolong the proceedings, it would be understandable; however, if not, then unfavorable witness examinations should be minimized for President Han’s benefit.

Furthermore, while the Church may not disclose detailed success fees, it should at least make public the contents of the legal contracts.

◆ Refusal of Visit by Moon In-jin

As seemingly intended by the Church leadership, President Han is now in a situation where she cannot directly confirm‎ Jeong Won-ju’s testimony scheduled for May 6, 2026.

There are also reports that a hospital visit by Moon In-jin was refused, and it is hoped that this is not true.

It is said that before President Han’s detention, Moon In-jin met her at Cheon Jeong Gung and candidly reported issues regarding Jeong Won-ju and the legal team.

At that time, President Han reportedly stated, “I will replace the entire legal team,” but the following day, nothing changed. Ultimately, Moon In-jin was excluded and, after being targeted by Jeong Won-ju, was allegedly unable even to visit President Han.

This suggests that the Church leadership is exercising control even stricter than that of a detention center.

Not only the leadership but also public officials and believers recall similar situations from when the True Father was hospitalized in the past.

◆ About the 23rd Trial

1. Perspective of the Church Leadership

In the “Hyojeong Briefing,” the Church leadership expressed strong encouragement, stating that Jeong Won-ju’s testimony at the April 28 trial decisively demonstrated that the claims of Yoon Young-ho’s side were false.

▲Former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and then-candidate Yoon Suk-yeol attending the Peace Summit on February 13, 2022.

For details, refer to the full text of the briefing.

2. Perspective of “Moshim (=Attendance) Peace Solidarity” and “Believers Justice Solidarity”

The view of Park Na-yun regarding the 23rd trial is highly objective and does not appeal to emotion.

A trial is not a place for faith or emotional appeals but for determining facts. The court decides based on evidence which argument is more substantiated, and believers are encouraged to understand this.

The current proceedings appear structured around the Church leadership’s effort to protect Jeong Won-ju. Attempts to portray everything as the personal deviation of Yoon Young-ho, and to depict President Han and Jeong Won-ju as mere “puppets,” are unlikely to be accepted by the court.

On April 28, Jeong Won-ju’s examination was conducted mainly by President Han’s legal team and the special prosecutor.

At the 24th trial on May 6, questioning of Jeong Won-ju by Yoon Young-ho’s defense team is scheduled, making it an extremely important session.

The original report by Park Na-yun is presented below. Believers are encouraged to read it carefully and view President Han’s trial not through faith, but through a fact-based perspective.

2026-05-01

Choi Jong-keun
[Unification Church Anti-Corruption Monitoring Committee]

※This document was generated by AI, so there may be occasional translation errors or inaccuracies.

◈ Reference Posts

■ The 22nd Trial of President Han② – Praise for Jeong Won-ju and the Need to Clarify the “Disappeared 200 Million KRW Condolence Fund” (2026-04-29)
https://cafe.daum.net/antiuccorruption/ZXsd/1510

■ The 22nd Trial of President Han – Testimony of Vault Manager Kim Jin〇: “President Han Directly Managed the Funds” (2026-04-26)
https://cafe.daum.net/antiuccorruption/ZXsd/1506

■ Police Suspend Inspection of 119 Individuals over “Unification Church Overseas Gambling Leak” – Focus on Special Prosecutor’s Findings (2026-04-24)
https://cafe.daum.net/antiuccorruption/ZXsd/1503

-----------------------

[Trial 23 Report] Evaporated Responsibility, Existing System

“Money moved organizationally, yet a bizarre legal vacuum exists where no commander is present.”

---

1. General Overview: A Structural Contradiction Where Phenomena Exist but Responsible Parties are Absent

The essence of this trial goes beyond the presence or absence of individual acts; it asks whether this is a "system designed for the evasion of responsibility." In the face of clear "phenomena"—billions in funds, contacts with politicians, and expensive gifts—the "feigned ignorance" strategy chosen by the defendants has instead raised larger legal issues regarding structural acquiescence and recognizability.

2. Core Legal Issues: "Direct Instruction" or "Recognizability"

• Structural Recognizability: If funds on the scale of billions were repeatedly executed at the highest levels of the organization, the claim of "not knowing" contradicts the rule of thumb. Legally, the core is not whether there was a direct order, but the "responsibility for negligence (omission) in failing to know despite being in a position to do so." Testimony that billions in funds were managed at a "Post-it" level without ledgers suggests a structure designed for evading responsibility rather than simple management inadequacy.
• Principle of Substantialism: Contrary to the formal title of "simple protocol officer" claimed by Chief of Staff Jeong ○○, if influence as a practical gatekeeper is confirmed—such as constant attendance at reporting sessions to Hak Ja Han and involvement in the disbursement of inner chamber funds—the court will hold them responsible based on substantive criteria. The defense of "simply being by her side" can be eval‎uated as a structural role in charge of coordination beside a high-level decision-maker.

3. Cracks in the Facts: Collapsed Credibility of Statements

The defense logic of the defendants is facing ruin in the face of statements that contradict objective physical evidence.

• Tenfold Gap in Amounts: Regarding the amount of money for Representative Kwon ○○, statements varying from 1 million won (New Year’s money) to 10 million won, and further to 100 million won, are eval‎uated as signs of intentional distortion to reduce the gravity of the case. In particular, Jeong ○○’s change in statement from "empty-handed" to "1 million won" undermines consistency.
• Conflict with Physical Evidence: Yoon ○○'s testimony claiming a "7:00 AM morning meeting" was revealed to be false by vehicle entry records showing entry into the palace at 9:42 AM and the contents of Yoon's own diary. The court is likely to weigh physical data more heavily than memory.
• Suspicions of Manipulation and Existence of Records: Jeong ○○’s diary, which raised the possibility of being backdated, and the "KakaoTalk messages of the report of the gifts (including photos)," whose existence has been controversial, are decisive factors that destroy the credibility of the defendants' entire testimony.

4. Teleological Interpretation: Political Reality Inside the Shell of Mission Work

Regarding the same acts, the defendants claim "pure mission work" while the prosecution claims "interference in the presidential election." However, if the acts had a consistent direction and were repeated during a specific period (around the election), there is a high possibility that "teleological intent" within the overall context will be recognized rather than the independent legitimacy of individual acts.

---

5. Major Legal Analysis of Trial 23

1) Core Conclusion

The money moved, and the structure existed. However, all involved parties say, "I didn't know." The essence of this trial is not a simple clash of statements, but how the system of contacting political circles, executing funds, providing gifts, and reporting operated within the organization, and why that responsibility disappeared.

2) The Core Question of This Trial

The core of this case is not only "did they give direct instructions." The important question is this: Could people in those positions truly not have known? Conspiracy, abetment, implicit approval, and management responsibility can be comprehensively determined through position, role, repeated reporting, the scale of funds, and post-event responses even without direct orders.

3) Suspicions of Political Interference

Jeong ○○ testified that the World Summit, the Korean Peninsula Peace Summit, and special assemblies were pure international events unrelated to the presidential election. However, the prosecution presented circumstances of contact with politicians such as Kwon Seong-dong and Lee Chul-gyu, recruitment of presidential candidates, internal KakaoTalk messages, and circumstances of paying donations to the People Power Party. Therefore, the issue is not whether the name of the event was an "international event." The core is whether political contact and fund flows were combined within the shell of an international event.

4) Issues with Fund Flow

The trial dealt with donations to provincial chapters of the People Power Party, recruitment fees for overseas politicians or mission activity expenses, gifts, jewelry, Chanel bags, Graff necklaces, and cash in the inner chamber safe. Jeong ○○ explained most of these as "not being reported," "thinking it was mission activity expenses," or "acting as a messenger." However, the problem is the scale and repetition of the funds. Testimony to the effect that funds worth billions of won were managed without ledgers raises suspicions about the existence of a structure that allows for the evasion of responsibility.

5) The Inner Chamber Safe Issue

Jeong ○○ testified that Kim ○○ managed the safe alone and that they did not know the balance or specific management method. However, a structure was also revealed where the withdrawal of inner chamber funds was possible through instructions from Han ○○ or communication by Jeong ○○. Therefore, the core is not "who directly opened the safe." The core of the judgment is who was in a position to enable the deposit and withdrawal of funds.

6) Suspicions Regarding Gifts and Expensive Items

Jeong ○○ denied involvement in expensive jewelry, Chanel bags, Graff necklaces, etc. However, messages were presented that Lee ○○ sent to Jeong ○○ regarding gift details, amounts, envelopes, gift certificates, and photos of Chanel bags. Jeong ○○ explained this as playing a role in recommendation or delivery, but the prosecution sees it as evidence of substantial involvement. The important thing is not whether they expressed an opinion that it was "pretty." The core is who decided the items, adjusted the amounts, and connected them to the source of funds.

7) Monetary Issues Related to Kwon Seong-dong

Jeong ○○ admitted that Kwon Seong-dong visited Cheon Jeong Gung on February 8, 2022, and that Han ○○ gave him 1 million won in the name of New Year's money. However, they denied the allegation of delivering 100 million won. On the other hand, Yoon ○○ claimed it was not 1 million won but 10 million won. The difference between 1 million won, 10 million won, and 100 million won is not a simple memory error. The legal meaning and the weight of the case are completely different. This point is central to judging the credibility of the statements.

8) Changes in Statements and Credibility Issues

In the initial investigation, Jeong ○○ said it seemed Kwon Seong-dong "left empty-handed," but later admitted to the memory of the 1 million won payment. This change can be seen as a simple recovery of memory, but conversely, it is an element that shakes the stability of the testimony. The repeated answers of "I don't remember" or "I didn't know" in Trial 23 can be important factors when the court judges credibility.

9) Conflict Regarding the Morning Meeting on March 10, 2022

Yoon ○○ testified that at the 7:00 AM morning meeting on March 10, 2022, the day after the presidential election, he delivered a thank-you call from Kwon Seong-dong to Han ○○. However, Jeong ○○ said there was no morning meeting that day. According to vehicle entry records, Yoon ○○'s vehicle entered the palace only at 9:42 AM, and there were entries related to sleeping in and coffee in Yoon ○○'s own diary. When objective entry records and testimony clash, the court is highly likely to place more weight on physical data than on memory.

10) Meaning of Jeong ○○’s Diary

Jeong ○○ explained that the diary was mainly written post-factum during the next morning's meeting. However, some schedule entries appeared to be written in advance, raising the issue that pre- and post-event writings were mixed. In particular, the meaning of the case changes depending on whether the "Representative Kwon Seong-dong" entry on January 5, 2022, was a pre-scheduled event or a post-report record. The diary is not just a simple memo, but supplementary evidence that determines political contact, reporting timing, and the credibility of memory.

11) Jeong ○○’s Actual Role

Jeong Won-ju described herself as being in charge of protocol and basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter). However, the prosecution believes that Jeong ○○ was almost always present at Han ○○'s reporting sessions, delivered permissions or approvals, and was connected to the flow of gifts and inner chamber funds. Therefore, the issue is not whether Jeong ○○ was the Chief of Staff. It is whether she substantially stood at the threshold of decision-making and fund flows.

The Meaning of "I was just by her side"

Jeong ○○ defended herself by saying, "I was just by her side." However, if one hears reports by the side of a high-level decision-maker, takes charge of delivery, coordinates contacts, and presents opinions on gifts, this can be eval‎uated as a structural role rather than simple presence.

12) Limits of the "Yoon ○○ Independent Deviation" Theory

Jeong ○○’s side claims that Yoon ○○ did most things on his own. However, Yoon ○○ claims that he moved according to Han ○○'s will or within the organizational context. It is a structure where each party shifts responsibility to the other. The court does not look at only one person's claim. It is likely to judge by synthesizing messages, schedules, fund flows, organizational structure, and post-event responses.

13) The Late 2024 "Please Accept the Item" Incident

The part where Yoon ○○ contacted Jeong ○○ in late 2024 to "please accept the item" is also important. Jeong ○○ testified that she did not know what the item was and told him to consult with a lawyer. Yoon ○○ said he tried to report to the President because the gift might become a problem, but Jeong ○○ blocked it. If the item in question was related to the charges, such as jewelry or a bag, this could be linked to evidence preservation, evasion of responsibility, or blocking of reports rather than simple contact.

---

Legal Structure

The legal structure of this case is as follows: The funds were actually executed. Those funds moved not as a one-off but repeatedly. Political contact, providing gifts, paying donations, and overseas support continued within a specific timing and direction. There is also testimony that the inner chamber funds were in a system that was difficult to withdraw without instructions from the highest authority or a delivery structure. If so, the claim that the top of the organization and the core figures around it were completely unaware is difficult to avoid strong doubt based on the rule of thumb.

Final Judgment Points

This trial is not about the absence of facts. Rather, facts remain everywhere. Money moved, contacts occurred, gifts were prepared, and records and messages exist. The problem is to whom those facts are attributed as responsibility.

14) Questions Left by Trial 23

• Is there no responsibility for failing to verify despite being able to know?
• Is there no responsibility for neglecting repeated fund flows?
• Can the words "I don't remember" cut off organizational responsibility?

What the court must clarify is not simple factual relations. It is whether there was a structure intentionally designed to evade responsibility, or at least left unattended in such a way that responsibility could effectively disappear.

One-Line Conclusion

Money moved organizationally, acts were repeated, and responsibility is floating in the air. Now, the court must find the owner of substantial responsibility hidden behind the words "everyone didn't know."

---

Direction of the Ruling: Three Scenarios

• Scenario A (Guilty - Structural Conspiracy Recognized): Recognition of implicit conspiracy and abandonment of management responsibility based on fund flows and reporting circumstances. Possibility of guilt including the highest decision-maker (High).
• Scenario B (Partially Guilty - Separation of Responsibility): Separating the responsibilities of the person at the center of execution (Yoon ○○) and the person in charge of negligent management (Jeong ○○) and sentencing them differently (Medium-High).
• Scenario C (Not Guilty - Individual Deviation): Regarding all acts as the independent deviation of a subordinate employee. Lacks persuasiveness considering post-event response records such as the "blocking of item delivery" circumstances in late 2024 (Low).

---

🏁 Final Conclusion

This trial now goes beyond "who directly ordered" and asks "who enjoyed and acquiesced to this structure." Billions of won flowed without losing their way, but the responsible person who designed that path has vanished. The core of the factual relationship is who stood at the 'threshold' that enabled the deposit and withdrawal of funds, and who recognized the adjustment of gift items and amounts. If the court remains faithful to the rule of thumb and structural logic, the defendants' chorus of "I don't remember" will not be an exoneration, but rather decisive evidence that destroys credibility.

👉 "Impossible ignorance cannot become a legal truth, and the designed vacuum of responsibility will be filled by legal principles."

May 1, 2026

Moshim Peace Solidarity · Believers Justice Solidarity

※This document was generated by AI, so there may be occasional translation errors or inaccuracies.

1. If you wish to continue seeing trial-related information, please click the Open Chat link below to enter.

https://open.kakao.com/o/g9rUoZ0h

1. Please participate in signing the petition for submission to the court.

👉 https://forms.gle/m7uZvRJBfo6BEZtb7

Please participate only if you agree after confirm‎ing the contents.

1. For those who wish to join us, please participate in the solidarity groups below.

Mosim Peace Solidarity: https://forms.gle/5JzEcJSK2qUjsNUt5

Sikgu Justice Solidarity: https://forms.gle/RmqD22Ax6XrA2DHt8