On April 21, 2026, a wave of legal scrutiny swept over one of South Korea’s most visible progressive civic groups, Chotbul Haengdong, as its executive representative Kim Min-woong, Pastor Yang Hee-sam of Katakom Church, and two other associates were sent to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office without detention. The charge? Violating the country’s Donation Act by allegedly collecting donations exceeding 10 million KRW annually without the required registration—a case that has ignited debate over the boundaries of civic activism and the relevance of South Korea’s fundraising laws.
According to Yonhap News, police allege that since 2021, Chotbul Haengdong has raised several billion KRW through a variety of means, including both online and offline rallies, YouTube live streams featuring unregistered donation accounts, and promotional posters with donation links. The group’s fundraising efforts reportedly spanned from virtual events to high-profile gatherings at Cheonggye Plaza in Seoul’s Jung-gu district and near the Presidential Office in Yongsan-gu.
At the heart of the controversy lies Article 4 of the Donation Act, which mandates that any individual or group intending to solicit donations of 10 million KRW or more must register the purpose, target amount, and solicitation methods with the Minister of the Interior and Safety or the head of the local government. Failure to comply can result in up to three years in prison or fines of up to 30 million KRW. The law’s intent is clear: to ensure transparency and accountability in the collection and use of public donations. Yet, as this case demonstrates, the application of these rules is far from straightforward in the digital era.
The investigation into Chotbul Haengdong’s fundraising practices began in earnest after allegations surfaced in 2022, prompting a sustained police inquiry. By September 2024, authorities had conducted a search of the group’s membership management program company, and in November of the same year, they raided Chotbul Haengdong’s office to secure evidence. These moves signaled just how seriously law enforcement was taking the claims of unregistered fundraising.
But the group and its supporters have not taken the accusations lying down. On April 23, 2026, Pastor Yang Hee-sam took to Facebook to defend his actions and those of the organization, arguing, “In the early days of Chotbul Haengdong, before the group was officially established, I received donations through my personal account. There is no problem with individuals receiving funds before the organization’s formation, and fundraising through YouTube is legally permissible because donors are considered akin to members.” This assertion echoes a recurring theme in the group’s defense: that the law does not adequately account for the realities of modern online fundraising, especially when supporters are engaged in a membership-like relationship with the organization via digital platforms.
Chotbul Haengdong’s legal counsel, Lee Je-il, echoed these sentiments, telling Newsis, “Police investigated whether there was any embezzlement in connection with fundraising for the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, but nothing was found. The only issue was a procedural violation. The 10 million KRW annual threshold is outdated; if prosecuted, we will take the case to the Constitutional Court.” Lee’s comments highlight a growing frustration among civic groups and their advocates, who argue that the threshold set by the Donation Act no longer reflects the scale or nature of contemporary fundraising, especially for organizations with large, active supporter bases.
The police, however, maintain a different perspective. According to their findings, Chotbul Haengdong’s activities crossed the legal line when they failed to register their fundraising efforts as required by law, regardless of whether the donations were collected online or in person. Their investigation, which included multiple raids and a review of the group’s digital and financial records, concluded that the group had indeed violated the law by raising large sums without proper oversight.
The case has sparked a wider debate in South Korea about the adequacy of current fundraising regulations and the challenges posed by new forms of digital activism. With the rise of platforms like YouTube and the increasing use of online tools for mobilization and fundraising, many civic groups find themselves navigating a legal landscape that has not kept pace with technological change. As a result, the Chotbul Haengdong case is being closely watched by both supporters and critics of the country’s progressive movements, as well as by legal experts and lawmakers considering reforms to the Donation Act.
Notably, the debate has also become a flashpoint in broader political and social discussions. Some see the prosecution of Chotbul Haengdong as a necessary step to ensure transparency and prevent misuse of public funds, arguing that all organizations—regardless of their political orientation—should be held to the same legal standards. Others, however, view the case as an example of overreach and outdated regulation, contending that the law should be revised to better accommodate the realities of modern activism and the needs of civil society groups.
As JoongAng Ilbo reported, the group’s lawyer, Lee Je-il, remains adamant: “No embezzlement charges emerged and the 10 million KRW annual threshold is outdated; any prosecution would be challenged at the Constitutional Court.” This suggests that the legal battle is far from over and could set a precedent for how South Korea regulates fundraising by civic organizations in the years to come.
Meanwhile, Pastor Yang continues to defend his actions and those of Chotbul Haengdong, reiterating on social media that “YouTube-based fundraising is legally supported by precedent since donors are considered akin to members.” The group’s supporters argue that their fundraising efforts are an essential part of their activism—fueling campaigns, rallies, and public awareness initiatives that would otherwise be impossible.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for Chotbul Haengdong but for the entire landscape of civic engagement in South Korea. If the Constitutional Court is called upon to weigh the merits of the Donation Act’s current provisions, it could lead to significant changes in how donation thresholds are set and how digital fundraising is regulated. For now, the case stands as a vivid illustration of the tensions between legal tradition and the evolving realities of grassroots activism.
As the legal process unfolds, all eyes remain on the courts—and on the broader societal conversation about how best to balance transparency, accountability, and the vital work of civic organizations in a changing world.