As of October 16, 2026 | Examining the investigation and prosecution involving the People Power Party separately from the Democratic Party’s internal inquiry
Religion provides people with meaning in life, strengthens communities, and sometimes inspires dedication and sacrifice that transcend individual interests. This power can motivate people to help their neighbors, protect vulnerable members of society, and put communal values into practice.
However, the situation changes when the same power is systematically mobilized for political purposes.
The controversy over members of Shincheonji and other religious groups joining political parties is not simply a question of which parties their followers joined. It raises a broader question: How should individual freedom and internal party democracy be protected when the authority of religious leaders, the trust of believers, and the cohesion of religious organizations are converted into political influence?
In particular, the controversy surrounding the Democratic Party’s internal inquiry on October 13–14, 2026, should be distinguished from the earlier case involving the People Power Party, in which an investigation and prosecution took place. Although both cases involve the same religious organization, the scope of established facts and the procedural stages are not the same.
This article examines the issues by distinguishing among statements made by investigators, findings from a political party’s internal inquiry, responses from the parties concerned, and matters that remain unverified.
1. The Same Religious Organization, but Two Cases at Different Stages
According to a Kukinews report published on October 14, 2026, the Democratic Party’s task force responsible for reviewing party membership said it had identified indications that Shincheonji members had joined the party collectively. However, further examination was still needed to determine whether there had been organized interference in internal party primaries and to establish the actual scale of membership enrollment.
By contrast, the case involving the People Power Party has proceeded through an investigation and prosecution by a joint investigation headquarters.
| Category | Case involving the People Power Party | Controversy involving the Democratic Party |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural stage | Investigation and prosecution; the current status of court proceedings requires verification | Internal party inquiry and consideration of follow-up measures |
| Main evidence | Findings announced by the joint investigation headquarters and the allegations set out in the indictment | Findings from the party’s own membership-review task force |
| Scale of enrollment | At least 56,472 members, according to figures announced by investigators | Some reports cited 30,000–50,000, but the party leader said the figure was inaccurate |
| Organized interference | Investigators alleged organized efforts to compel party enrollment and related conduct | Whether there was organized interference in party primaries requires further verification |
| Final determination | Judicial findings are required for each defendant | The scope of the inquiry and its evidence require further verification |
The crucial point is that applying the same standards does not mean reaching the same conclusions.
If investigators allege organized coercion in the case involving the People Power Party, those allegations must be examined through the evidence, the charges, the defendants’ responses, and the court’s judgment. In the case involving the Democratic Party, the scope and limitations of the internal inquiry must first be established.
Allegations raised in one case cannot be used as proof of suspicions in the other. Conversely, differences in procedural stage should not be used as a reason to dismiss allegations against either party outright.
Democracy requires not mechanically balanced conclusions for political convenience, but consistent standards of scrutiny and judgments grounded in evidence.
2. The Case Involving the People Power Party: What Did Investigators Report?
According to a Seoul Shinmun report published on July 13, 2026, a joint investigation headquarters examining corruption involving links between religion and politics announced that Shincheonji leader Lee Man-hee and other officials had been indicted on charges including violations of the Political Parties Act and obstruction of business.
The report stated that the first indictment relating to certain enrollment activities in 2021 was filed on June 29, followed by additional indictments under detention against Lee and others on July 13.
The joint investigation headquarters reportedly said it had questioned 203 people in 272 interrogation sessions and conducted searches and seizures at 56 locations. Investigators announced that they had identified at least 56,472 party enrollments, broken down by period as follows:
- July 2021: 6,482
- December 2021: 2,873
- December 2022: 35,073
- August 2023: 12,044
These figures represent the scale announced by investigators. They must not be added to, or treated as equivalent to, the figure of 30,000–50,000 cited by some media outlets in connection with the Democratic Party controversy.
According to media reports, investigators concluded that Shincheonji’s leadership had recognized the need to approach the political sphere to resolve issues affecting the religious organization. They reportedly determined that, following instructions and approval from Lee Man-hee, party enrollment was directed across regional branches, targets were assigned, and enrollment progress was monitored.
A related report by Dailian also described an alleged chain of instructions, based on statements by former officials, extending from the head of Shincheonji through senior administrative officials, regional branch leaders, local church pastors, and individual departments.
If these claims are substantiated by evidence, the matter would go beyond individuals independently choosing to join a political party. It would raise the question of whether an organizational chain of command was used to coordinate members’ political behavior on a collective basis.
However, investigators’ conclusions must be distinguished from a final judicial determination of guilt. According to the Dailian report, Shincheonji’s side denied the allegations, maintaining that Lee Man-hee neither instructed members to join a political party nor received reports about such enrollment.
The key task, therefore, is not simply to repeat investigators’ claims. The judicial process must examine whether instructions were given and approved, the specific involvement of each defendant, the circumstances in which members joined, and the validity of Shincheonji’s counterarguments.
A Segye Ilbo report published on July 7, 2026 stated that the first trial hearing was scheduled for July 24. As of October 16, 2026, the subsequent progress of the trial should be checked against separate, up-to-date sources.
3. The Democratic Party Controversy: Evidence of Collective Enrollment Is Not the Same as Proof of Interference in Primaries
One issue that must not be overlooked is the scope and limitations of the Democratic Party’s internal inquiry.
According to Kukinews on October 14, 2026, the Democratic Party’s task force responsible for reviewing party membership said it had identified indications that Shincheonji members had joined the party.
Party leader Kim Min-seok reportedly said that a considerable degree of collective enrollment appeared to have been confirmed. However, he indicated that further examination was needed to determine whether there had been organized interference in party primaries. He also rejected the figure of 30,000–50,000 cited by some media outlets as inaccurate.
The methodology of the inquiry also had limitations. The task force was reportedly comparing portions of Shincheonji’s membership list with portions of the party’s membership register. Such a partial comparison makes it difficult to establish the total number of members involved with precision, determine when and under what circumstances individuals joined, or conclusively assess the actual impact on internal party primaries.
In particular, the fact that a person’s name appears on a list does not, by itself, establish whether that person joined voluntarily or at the direction of an organization.
Three issues must therefore be distinguished in the Democratic Party case.
First, the claim that indications of Shincheonji members joining the party have been identified.
Second, whether it has been established that the enrollment occurred as a result of instructions or mobilization at the religious organization level.
Third, whether such enrollment developed into organized conduct intended to influence internal party primaries.
Each of these issues requires separate evidence.
Political disputes have further complicated the situation. The same report also discussed factional conflict within the Democratic Party, questions about the extent to which the findings should be disclosed, and concerns about the source of information leaks. Individuals aligned with former party leader Chung Chung-rae were reported to have called for greater disclosure of the evidence and findings.
If internal party conflict affects the disclosure or interpretation of the inquiry’s results, it may undermine confidence in the investigation itself. The Democratic Party should therefore transparently disclose the subjects and methodology of the inquiry, the scope of the materials compared, and the distinction between confirmed findings and unresolved questions.
At the same time, the publication of inquiry findings should not be treated as proof that organized interference in party primaries occurred.
In the Democratic Party case, the existence of suspicions must be distinguished from proof of the underlying conduct.
4. How Does Religious Solidarity Become a Tool of Political Mobilization?
Let us take the question one step further.
How can faith be used to mobilize people politically?
Faith is not inherently a political tool. However, because it is deeply connected to personal identity, moral judgment, and meaning in life, it can exert a different kind of influence from organizations based primarily on material interests when it is mobilized systematically.
This process can be examined through several mechanisms.
First, trust can turn into political obedience.
Trust in a religious leader is an important foundation of a faith community. However, when a leader’s religious authority extends to the point of exercising overriding influence over political judgment, members may prioritize the leader’s instructions over their own assessments.
Voluntarily agreeing with religious teachings is not the same as obeying political directives unconditionally. When this boundary breaks down, individual political freedom may be at risk.
Second, a religious mission can become intertwined with a political objective.
If a particular political action is presented as a duty to the religious community or as an expression of faith, joining a political party may come to be understood not simply as a political choice, but as a demonstration of loyalty to the community.
Third, community cohesion can be converted into organizational mobilization.
If a large number of people join a party around the same time, the circumstances deserve scrutiny. However, similarity in enrollment dates alone does not establish that organized instructions were given. Investigators must also examine the content of any instructions, the circumstances of enrollment, members’ freedom of choice, and internal reporting structures.
Fourth, critical questions can be treated as disloyalty to the community.
If questioning a political directive is regarded as disloyalty to a religious leader or community, members may find it difficult to express their own judgments freely.
These mechanisms do not indicate a problem with faith itself. The issue is how religious authority is exercised.
In particular, a related Dailian report discussed messenger records reportedly obtained by the joint investigation headquarters. According to the report, some communications described members’ actions not as an attempt to merge religion with politics, but as a demonstration of strength and an exercise of rights in connection with an issue concerning Shincheonji’s temple in Gwacheon.
These records offer a basis for examining how investigators interpreted the relationship between religious explanations and efforts to resolve issues affecting the organization. However, excerpts from investigative materials presented in a news report are not sufficient to establish the intentions of the entire organization or the motives of individual members. The context of the records, their admissibility as evidence, the responses of those involved, and the court’s assessment must also be considered.
Nevertheless, this aspect of the case raises an important question.
If the solidarity of a religious community was used to exert political influence in order to resolve issues affecting the organization, to what extent was the independent judgment of individual believers respected in the process?
That is the central question in examining the relationship between faith and politics.
5. What Role Should Religious Leaders Play?
The fundamental role of a religious leader is to provide spiritual guidance and help shape the ethical direction of the community. Religious organizations may also express views on social issues and participate in public policy debates; such activities are not inherently problematic.
The situation changes, however, if a religious leader’s authority is used to replace members’ political choices, direct organized party enrollment, or exert improper influence over a political party’s internal decision-making.
In such cases, the leader’s intentions should not be assumed in advance. The specific conduct must be examined.
- Who proposed or instructed members to join a political party?
- Were members informed of the purpose of the enrollment and how their membership would be used?
- Were they free to refuse to join?
- Was there a system for monitoring enrollment or reporting membership figures?
- Was there a plan to influence a party primary or internal decision-making?
- Were there improper exchanges or special favors between the religious organization and political actors?
Answers to these questions are necessary to assess the religious leader’s actual role and responsibility.
Evidence is required before concluding that a religious leader deliberately sought to assume a role in political mobilization. At the same time, investigating whether religious authority was used to mobilize people politically is necessary to protect individual freedom and democracy.
The greater a leader’s authority, the greater the responsibility that should accompany it. Gaining the trust of believers does not confer the right to make their political choices on their behalf.
6. What Is the Legal Framework?
Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees freedom of religion, prohibits the establishment of a state religion, and provides for the separation of religion and state.
This does not mean that religious people must stay out of politics. Religious individuals have the right to join political parties and express political opinions in accordance with their own beliefs. Religious organizations may also express views on public policies concerning welfare, labor, human rights, life, peace, and other public issues. Such activities are not prohibited in themselves.
However, as discussed in reporting on Article 42 of the Political Parties Act, forcing someone to join or leave a political party is subject to legal scrutiny.
The key issue is voluntariness.
When individuals make their own decisions to join a political party, they are exercising a political right. By contrast, if religious authority is used to compel enrollment or organizational influence is used to interfere improperly in a party’s decision-making, the specific conduct and potential legal responsibility must be examined separately.
Allegations of organized coercion should not be ignored in the name of protecting religious freedom. Conversely, suspicions of political intervention by a particular religious organization should not be used to stigmatize or discriminate against all its members.
The appropriate standard is not religious affiliation, but specific conduct and evidence.
7. Political Parties Must Also Be Held Accountable
The issue of religious organizations intervening in politics does not end with the responsibility of religious leaders.
Political parties also have a duty to protect the integrity of their membership procedures and the fairness of internal primaries. If the mobilization capacity of an external organization has affected party membership numbers or primary results, the voluntariness of enrollment and the involvement of party officials must be examined.
In the case involving the People Power Party, the findings and charges announced by investigators must be scrutinized through the legal process. In the Democratic Party controversy, the scope and limitations of the internal inquiry should be disclosed transparently, with confirmed facts distinguished from assumptions and unresolved matters.
The following principles should apply equally to all political parties:
- Investigative standards must not change according to a party’s political interests.
- Voluntary enrollment must be distinguished from organized coercion.
- Interference in party primaries must be assessed through specific conduct and evidence, not membership numbers alone.
- Allegations of improper exchanges or special favors between religious organizations and political actors must be objectively examined.
- Investigators’ announcements, the responses of those involved, and judicial findings must be clearly distinguished.
Democracy cannot be protected merely by pointing out allegations against political opponents. Political trust can develop only when the same standards are applied to one’s own side.
8. Organized Coercion Must Be Examined to Protect Freedom of Religion
When examining allegations of political intervention by religious organizations, it is essential not to treat every member of the religion as part of a single, undifferentiated group.
Believers who independently decided to join a political party must be distinguished from those who joined at the direction of an organization. Those who directed the organization’s activities must also be distinguished from members who may have been unaware of specific instructions. Responsibility should not be assigned indiscriminately to everyone.
A person’s religious affiliation alone cannot establish that person’s political views or involvement in unlawful conduct.
This distinction is not intended to shield a particular religion. It is a principle for accurately identifying actual wrongdoing while preventing discrimination against individuals who were not involved.
Freedom of religion and political freedom are not inherently conflicting values. Both can be protected when religious authority does not replace individual choice and political power does not become subordinate to the influence of religious organizations.
Conclusion: In Whose Interests Was the Power of Faith Used?
The controversy over Shincheonji’s political party enrollment invites us to reconsider the relationship between faith and politics.
As of October 16, 2026, the case involving the People Power Party should be examined in light of investigators’ announcements and the charges brought, while distinguishing those allegations from the defendants’ responses and the court’s findings. In the Democratic Party case, the indications of collective enrollment reported by the party’s internal inquiry must be distinguished from the question of whether organized interference in party primaries occurred. The scope and limitations of the inquiry must also be taken into account.
The same standards of scrutiny should apply to both cases, while conclusions should reflect the strength of the evidence and the procedural stage of each case.
A more fundamental question remains.
Did religious leaders respect the conscience and freedom of their followers? Was the trust generated by faith and the solidarity of the community used to encourage voluntary participation in society, or was it mobilized to expand the political influence of a particular organization?
The answers must be established through specific evidence, not religious prejudice or political self-interest.
Faith is not inherently a political tool. However, when the trust and solidarity created by faith are converted into political obedience, they can be used as powerful instruments of political mobilization.
The purity of faith should not be judged by the intensity of belief or the size of the organization. It should be judged by whether that faith expands individual conscience and freedom—or replaces individual judgment in the service of someone else’s objectives.
The greater a religious leader’s authority, the greater the responsibility that should accompany it. Religious organizations must respect the political freedom of their members, political parties must safeguard independent decision-making against external organizational influence, investigative authorities and the judiciary must test allegations against evidence, and political actors must apply the same standards to themselves.
What democracy must protect is not the unconditional exclusion of religion from politics. It is the right of religious citizens to participate freely in political life, while ensuring that no one uses faith to exercise another person’s political freedom on their behalf.
Faith exists to protect a person’s conscience, not to replace someone else’s conscience.
This is the principle we should uphold in considering the relationship between religion and politics—not only in the Shincheonji political party enrollment controversy, but beyond it.
Peter Yang