In an election where a single vote can determine the winner, allegations that a specific religious group systematically mobilised to influence the fate of a political candidate are undeniably serious. But precisely because such allegations can carry enormous consequences, they demand the highest standard of verification. The first question should therefore have been simple: what do the facts and the numbers actually show?
The figure initially circulated in political circles regarding Shincheonji members who had joined the People Power Party ahead of the 20th presidential election was “100,000.” Yet the Joint Investigation Headquarters of the Prosecution and Police reportedly identified 6482 people after comparing the actual Shincheonji Church of Jesus membership list with the People Power Party membership list. Of those, approximately 4560 are reported to have actually participated in the People Power Party's presidential primary.
At the time, approximately 570,000 people participated in that primary. The 4560 Shincheonji members therefore represented just 0.8% of the total. More importantly, the difference between first-place candidate Yoon Suk-yeol and second-place candidate Hong Joon-pyo was 46,177 votes. Even under the assumption that all 4560 voters supported one candidate, the result could not have been overturned.
These figures matter because the original allegation was not merely a numerical error. The difference between “100,000” and “4560” fundamentally changes the scale and potential impact of the alleged intervention. When an allegation of such magnitude is used to portray a religious organisation as capable of determining the outcome of a presidential election, presenting an unverified figure can itself have serious consequences.
The timing of the memberships also deserves scrutiny. Among the subscribers identified by the Joint Investigation Headquarters, 9355 reportedly joined during the presidential primary and immediately before the election, representing 16.6% of the total. The largest group, 35,073 people, reportedly joined during the party leadership primary rather than the presidential election. This creates a significant discrepancy between the narrative of mobilising members to “make a president” and the period in which the largest increase in membership actually occurred.
Yet despite these discrepancies, the consequences have not simply disappeared. ManHee Lee, the 95-year-old Chairman of Shincheonji Church of Jesus, remains in custody while standing trial.
On the 20th and 21st of last month, three people from different religious traditions staged consecutive one-person protests in front of the Seoul Central District Court. Chairman Kim Jun-yeon of the Sungkyunkwan Confucian Association, Monk Beopsan of the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, and Pastor Lee Jung-kyung of the Interdenominational Presbyterian Church of Korea called for the immediate release of Chairman Lee, arguing that his detention and investigation were unjust.
Chairman Kim Jun-yeon, referring to Chairman Lee’s peace initiatives, emphasised that “the law must be applied to everyone by the same standards.” Pastor Lee Jung-kyung likewise argued that society should not stand by while an elderly person is detained and stigmatised because he belongs to a minority religion. On the 21st, the day of the bail hearing, Venerable Beopsan protested in the rain and bowed three times towards the courthouse gate, while also calling for consideration of prison overcrowding and conditional release.
Their religions were different, but the fundamental concern was the same: what happens when the scale of an allegation is dramatically larger than the facts ultimately established?
This is where the issue becomes one of justice rather than sympathy for a particular religion. A person or organisation should not continue to bear the full weight of an allegation after the factual basis for that allegation has materially changed. Nor should an arrest, investigation, or prosecution itself transform an initial accusation into a settled fact in the public mind.
The reduction from “100,000” to “4560” does not, by itself, establish that an arrest was unlawful or that no offence occurred. Detention must be assessed according to separate legal requirements, including risks such as flight or destruction of evidence. But the reverse is equally important: the existence of an arrest cannot be used to retrospectively validate the original scale or framing of an allegation.
That distinction is essential to justice. The presumption of innocence, equal treatment before the law, and proportionality lose their meaning if the most damaging version of an allegation remains embedded in public consciousness regardless of what subsequent investigation actually establishes.
This is therefore not simply a question of defending or attacking a particular religion. It is a question of whether the immense power of the state — investigation, prosecution, detention, and punishment — is being exercised in proportion to the facts of the case, and whether minority groups receive the same protection of due process as everyone else.
Ultimately, the court will determine the legal facts and responsibility. But another responsibility belongs to the press: to record accurately what was alleged, what was subsequently confirmed, and where the two diverge.
If the numbers changed so dramatically during the investigation, then the original figures and the narrative built around them deserve to be re-examined. If an allegation was amplified before it had been properly verified, those responsible for presenting it must also confront the consequences of that failure.
Because injustice does not occur only when the wrong person is convicted. It can also begin when an unverified accusation is presented as fact, when its scale is exaggerated, and when the correction arrives too late to undo the damage.
The final judgment belongs to the court. But ensuring that allegations do not become “facts” simply through repetition is a responsibility shared by investigators, prosecutors, politicians, and the press. When the numbers change, the narrative must change with them.
Source: vo.la/owtWvnM
