Joo says "Made excessive demands to reduce sentence"
"Acknowledged transcript evidence considering the special nature of the disabled class"
Webtoon artist Ju Homin's son abuse allegations against a special education teacher have resulted in a guilty verdict, and Ju opened up about his feelings during the trial. Ju explained that he initially intended to show leniency toward teacher A but changed his stance and submitted a petition for a guilty verdict, stating, "I decided to show leniency and requested a meeting, but through the lawyer, I received demands that were difficult to accept."
On the 2nd, Ju said on CBS Radio's 'Kim Hyun-jung's News Show,' "They told me to write a withdrawal of the complaint, not a petition for leniency," adding, "They also demanded compensation for the mental distress caused by not being able to attend school for several months." He continued, "I was taken aback and couldn't respond, but the next day, a second demand came," saying, "It said they would withdraw the monetary demand but instead wanted a handwritten apology." Ju said, "I never received an apology or any contact, but they demanded I write an apology stating that they had received an apology and confirmed there was no intent to abuse," adding, "All these words were aimed at reducing the sentence, so I gave up on leniency and decided to see it through to the end."
He also shared how difficult it was to endure public criticism.
Ju said, "When articles with very sensational titles about my child's disability characteristics came out, for example, 'Ju Homin's son pulls down his pants in front of a female student,' it was very hard," arguing, "Pulling down pants is an act without any intent, something an autistic child might just do." He added, "There were articles saying things like 'He often said the word groin,' but my son just muttered it because the sound of the word groin was amusing," and lamented, "But reporting a 9-year-old child with a disability as if he were obsessed with sex was horrifying." According to Ju, his son, who was 9 at the time, had an intellectual development level equivalent to about 4 to 6 years old.
Ju said, "During the opposing side's argument, they said, 'The child's intelligence is such that he cannot recognize the abuse, so it is not abuse,'" adding, "Even dogs that cannot speak can sense the atmosphere, so saying that the child wouldn't know about the abuse because of low intelligence seemed like a statement revealing ignorance about disabilities, and it hurt my heart deeply."
Regarding why he remained silent at the beginning of the case, Ju said, "At the start, whenever there was criticism, I responded by issuing statements, but each time, more criticism poured in, and I couldn't convince people with explanations," adding, "As criticism toward my child increased during that process, I decided to focus fully on the trial and speak after the verdict was delivered."
The day before, the Suwon District Court Criminal Division 9 (Judge Kwak Yong-heon) suspended sentencing with a fine of 2 million won for special education teacher A, who was indicted without detention on charges of violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes and the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act.
In this regard, lawyer Baek Seong-moon appeared on SBS Radio's 'Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show' and explained, "The first trial court found that child abuse had occurred," adding, "Suspended sentencing means a guilty verdict was given at the trial stage, but there is no actual punishment; it can be seen as a symbolic judgment." Lawyer Yang Ji-yeol said on the same radio show, "The teacher's side argued that the harsh words were just self-talk with no intended recipient," adding, "However, the court seemed to judge that expressions like 'I hate you' were directed at someone, so it was not self-talk." He further explained, "Since the special education teacher received a child abuse verdict, the defense used the phrase 'effectively a social death sentence.'"
A key piece of evidence in this trial was a recording tape that Ju and his spouse placed in their child's bag. Initially, it was analyzed that the evidence might not be admissible because it was secretly recorded without the consent of the parties involved, but the court accepted it as evidence, considering exceptional circumstances despite acknowledging its illegality. Lawyer Baek said, "This child has been registered with autism since age 4, and the children in the class also have autism," adding, "Therefore, since there is no way to verify if a crime occurred in the classroom, the court judged that it should be considered an exception and not illegal." Lawyer Yang warned, "If you search online for 'child recorder' or 'kindergarten recorder,' many appear, but most can be punished under the Communications Privacy Protection Act," urging caution.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
