On December 9th, Song Eon-seok, floor leader of the People Power Party, is speaking at a policy meeting held at the National Assembly. He is stating that he will file a complaint against the Minjoo Party's special prosecutor for ignoring the investigation into alleged financial wrongdoings by the Unification Church. Yonhap News

The reason for the repeated controversies surrounding the case of Yoon Young-ho, former head of the Unification Church World Headquarters, is that the questions raised in the first installment of this analytical article have not been resolved. These questions were: 'Is this a simple case of religious-political collusion, or an attempt to conceal key evidence?' Delving deeper into this question leads to a second core question.

“Why did the special prosecutor's office not conduct an ex officio investigation into this case?”

Breach of trust and embezzlement are typical crimes subject to ex officio investigation. Even without a victim's complaint or accusation, investigative authorities can immediately launch an investigation if they detect (become aware of) suspicions of a crime. Especially if a high-ranking official within an organization was at the core of the fund execution and management system, the requirements for an ex officio investigation are sufficiently met with media reports or statements from involved parties alone. Therefore, in normal circumstances, an investigation should start from the 'funds' rather than testimonies, and the starting point should have been 'accounts,' not words.

However, the direction in which the Yoon Young-ho case unfolded was different. The Unification Church side chose to file a criminal complaint regarding the content of his statements, rather than focusing on breach of trust or embezzlement. This resulted in shifting the focus of the investigation from verifying funds to determining the truthfulness of statements. Ultimately, it was a strategic choice to block the possibility of an ex officio investigation and confine the debate to the 'credibility of statements'.

This choice becomes even more notable due to the time variable of the statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations for violations of the Political Funds Act is 7 years. If the period mentioned in Yoon Young-ho's statement is around 2018, then the end of 2025 is when the expiration of the statute of limitations becomes visible. On the other hand, if the investigation expands to include allegations of breach of trust, embezzlement, or bribery, the statute of limitations becomes longer. In other words, the investigation's timeline itself changes depending on the focus of the charges.

At this point, the special prosecutor's choice invites political interpretation.

The special prosecutor's team led by Min Choong-ki concluded the investigation by securing Yoon Young-ho's statement and transferring some matters. However, no circumstances indicating a large-scale ex officio investigation tracking financial flows have been detected. Ultimately, the investigation focused on matters with an approaching statute of limitations, and the core issues that could have been fully investigated due to longer statutes of limitations were left untouched.

This investigative flow leads to two opposing interpretations. One is that an ex officio investigation was unnecessary because there was no substance to the alleged financial crimes.

Despite this, there are still aspects that remain unexplained. Why did the Unification Church side simultaneously take strong distancing measures, issue an official denial, and expel a person of the World Headquarters level?

If the revelations were baseless, there would be no reason to employ such an aggressive and unusual method to isolate an individual.

Another hypothesis is that the investigation's door was intentionally closed due to concerns that the repercussions could spread to an uncontrollable level the moment an investigation into the funds began.

An investigation into funds inevitably involves extensive account tracing, which indiscriminately expands to foundations, related corporate entities, and even points of contact within the political sphere. In such a case, the case would move beyond a simple controversy of religious-political collusion and uncontrollably escalate into issues of electoral fairness and accountability of those at the core of power.

The word 'frame' that repeatedly appears in the Yoon Young-ho case gains meaning at this point.

The 'religious-political collusion frame' confines the case to the realm of moral condemnation. On the other hand, the 'financial frame' shifts the case into the realm of records and evidence. Which frame the investigation chose is more clearly revealed not by 'what it tried to reveal,' but by 'what it decided not to reveal.'

The reason this case is still ongoing is also here.

The more Yoon Young-ho's statement is shaken, the more the credibility of the investigation should be secured through material evidence rather than testimony. However, as long as an ex officio investigation into financial flows does not fully commence, suspicions are bound to accumulate rather than be resolved. In particular, the current situation, where only the statute of limitations is running out without the key trigger of 'election funds' being clarified, is becoming a background that fuels further doubts.

Ultimately, the second question in the Yoon Young-ho case is summarized as follows:

“Was it impossible to conduct an ex officio investigation, or was it possible but not chosen?”

Unless an answer to this question is provided, neither the religious-political collusion debate nor the controversy over the concealment of the case will ever end.

And the answer to this question will be determined not by the final conclusion of the special prosecutor's office, but by the existence or absence of 'evidence' that will be revealed to the world in the future.

Reporter Kim Young