Court Rules "Dismissal of Gwangjin-gu School Me Too Teacher Justified"... 2nd Trial Court Rejects Appeal

Seoul High Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A former teacher who was criminally punished for making inappropriate sexual remarks to students during class lost again in the second trial after filing a lawsuit to cancel his dismissal.

According to the court on the 26th, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 6-2 (Presiding Judges Wi Gwang-ha, Hong Seong-wook, Choi Bong-hee) dismissed the appeal of former ethics teacher Choi (62), who filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education to cancel his dismissal, upholding the first trial’s ruling that deemed the dismissal justified.

Choi was prosecuted on charges of repeatedly sexually harassing students over about one and a half years while working as an ethics teacher at a middle school in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul (violation of the Child Abuse Punishment Act).

The case, which became known in September 2018 when students at the middle school exposed the abuse on social networking services (SNS) and posted sticky notes around the school, was called the so-called "Gwangjin-gu School Me Too" incident.

According to the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s audit, Choi made inappropriate remarks such as telling students, "Women should have a figure like Aphrodite," or "If you sit on my lap, I will give you full marks on the performance evaluation." Ultimately, Choi was prosecuted and dismissed.

Choi was indicted in May 2019 and sentenced in the second trial last August to six months in prison with a two-year probation. Choi has appealed and is awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.

In the lawsuit to cancel the dismissal, Choi claimed that his remarks were intended to increase students’ concentration during class and not to cause sexual humiliation.

However, the court ruled, "The remarks in question are difficult to consider educational and constitute sexual harassment due to excessive sexual language."

The court also pointed out, "Even if the plaintiff had discretion in teaching, he should have deeply considered how students would perceive it and conducted the class accordingly."

Furthermore, the court concluded, "What the plaintiff considers a sign of friendliness may cause unpleasant feelings to others," and "The fact that the acts were carried out as part of school education alone does not justify the plaintiff’s behavior."