Supreme Court Draws the Line: When Does Discipline Cross into Child Abuse

The Supreme Court has ruled that the actions of a teacher who grabbed a second-grade elementary school boy by the arm and yelled at him to get up to encourage him to participate in essential educational activities did not constitute child abuse.

The Second Division of the Supreme Court overturned the second trial verdict that found Mr. Choi guilty on child abuse charges and sent him back to the Uijeongbu District Court on the grounds that he was not guilty.

In March 2019, Mr. Choi, who was the classroom teacher of a second-grade elementary school student, physically abused a student in his class by shouting, “Hey, wake up!” and violently grabbing his arm when he didn’t go to class during lunch was tried on charges of

The first and second trials recognized child abuse and sentenced the child to a fine of 1 million won, stating: “It is difficult to say that this was a situation where guidance through physical force was necessary because it was impossible to discipline through other educational means”. such as conversations or non-physical sanctions.”

However, the Supreme Court said: “The act of a teacher of educating a student who is a child under the law cannot be assessed as an act of abuse prohibited by the Child Welfare Act unless there are special circumstances.”

He continued: “Even if a student feels physical pain during the course of education, it cannot be said to be a violation of the Child Welfare Act if it falls within the scope of education under the law.”

Furthermore, “in school education, teachers’ competence and teaching rights must be respected, and teachers have some discretion in their orientation,” he said “If the orientation conforms to the purpose of school laws and regulations it is objectively recognized as appropriate, it is considered an educational act”.

The Supreme Court took into account the fact that Mr. Choi called the parents and asked for their consent, saying that he could not take the child because he thought the child would get hurt if he used more force, and that “the Mr. Choi’s actions were an act of guidance based on the purpose of encouraging participation in essential educational activities.” I decided.