Detaining an 76-Year-Old over $750? The Untold Side of the Huh Kyung-young Case.

 Detaining an 80-Year-Old over $750? The Untold Side of the Huh Kyung-young Case.

Is it truly fair to keep an 76-year-old man behind bars over a minor dispute? As of February 2026, Huh Kyung-young remains in custody, and the details of his detention raise serious questions about judicial fairness and human rights.




1. A Detention Extended over $750 (1 Million KRW)Huh Kyung-young is currently 76years old. Despite his age, his detention was recently extended just one day before his scheduled release in December 2025. The reason? A new charge involving a mere 1 million KRW (approx. $750) from a 2021 case. Even though this amount was already fully refunded, the court cited a "risk of destroying evidence" to keep him imprisoned. Is detaining an 76-year-old public figure over such a small, settled amount truly a necessary measure in a civilized society?
2. A Matter of Voluntary Choice, Not CoercionThe core of the controversy lies in "Haneulgung." It is important to remember that no one was forced to go there. The accusers are individuals who visited Haneulgung of their own free will, seeking lectures and spiritual consultations. They were not victims of a trap; they were voluntary participants who made a conscious decision to travel there.
3. Lectures Provided, Services PurchasedHuh Kyung-young provided his philosophy and knowledge through lectures and speeches. The visitors, based on their own judgment and belief, decided to pay for these services and "energy treatments".
In any other context, if you pay for a lecture or a service because you find it valuable at the time, you don't call it "fraud" just because you change your mind later. These were transparent transactions where the provider offered content, and the consumers chose to buy it based on their personal convictions. Why should a service provider be treated as a criminal for fulfilling a request made by a voluntary visitor?
4. Questioning the "Risk of Destroying Evidence"The court rejected his bail in February 2026, claiming he might interfere with evidence. However, Huh is a prominent public figure who has run for office 8 times. Where would an 76-year-old man flee? The argument that he poses a significant threat to the judicial process seems disproportionate when compared to the voluntary nature of the interactions at Haneulgung.
5. Justice Must Be ObjectiveThe situation where individuals choose to purchase a service, benefit from it, and then turn around to sue the provider—leading to the imprisonment of an elderly man—is deeply concerning. The focus of this case should not be on sensationalized claims, but on the fact that these interactions were based on the accusers' own judgment and voluntary actions.
True justice should recognize the difference between a forced crime and a voluntary choice. It is time to look at the facts beyond the headlines.

Before you judge, remember that there is only one true Lawgiver and Judge.

Popular posts from this blog

UFOs Are Not What You Think: Dimensional Spacecraft, 12-Color Black Holes, and the 36,500 Reincarnation Cycle

The Science of Fermentation and the 1% Truth: Finding the Divine Shepherd

Are You Raw Material — Or a Finished Product? The Truth About Your Life's Purpose