Middle School Student Spied on Friend Using the Bathroom... Court Rules "School Violence Measures Justified"

Middle School Student Disciplined for School Violence After Peeping on Friend Using the Bathroom
Student's Side Files Lawsuit to Cancel Notification Claiming Unfairness... Court Rejects Petition

A court ruling has upheld the school violence measures taken against a middle school student who secretly watched a classmate urinating in a locked bathroom stall inside the school.

Image unrelated to the article content.
Photo by Getty Images

On the 14th, the Administrative Division 1-2 of Incheon District Court (Chief Judge So Byung-jin) announced that it ruled against middle school student A in a lawsuit seeking to cancel the notification of disciplinary measures by the School Violence Countermeasures Committee, filed against the head of an education support office in Incheon. The court dismissed A's request to cancel the orders for community service and special education and ordered him to bear all litigation costs.

Previously, in April last year, when A was a first-year middle school student, he and his friend B were playing around by splashing water in the school bathroom during break time. A secretly watched B, who had entered a stall to urinate, from the adjacent stall. B expressed displeasure, saying "Don't cross the line," and a month later, the School Violence Countermeasures Committee was convened. According to a statement B submitted to the committee, "At that time, A saw my genitals. When I asked him to apologize, he gave a half-hearted apology." He added, "Although A seemed to be joking, the harm was significant. I hope he never does that again."

The School Violence Committee regarded A's act of stepping on the toilet seat to look at his friend urinating as sexual violence, a form of school violence, and imposed 4 hours of community service and 4 hours of special education on A. In response, A filed an administrative lawsuit through his legal guardians, his parents, in June last year, claiming the disciplinary measures by the education support office were unlawful.

A explained the situation at the time, saying, "I thought B was playing hide-and-seek, so I entered the adjacent stall and looked down. When I realized he was urinating, I just got off the toilet." He insisted, "Since it was unintentional negligence that I saw my friend's urination, sexual violence cannot be established," and expressed his grievance, saying, "The disciplinary action recognizing it as school violence due to sexual violence is unlawful."

However, the court did not accept A's claims. The court recognized that A violated B's sexual self-determination rights and ruled that it constituted school violence due to sexual violence. The court stated, "Although A claims it was a hide-and-seek prank, considering their age and intelligence, there was no circumstance that could have caused such a misunderstanding at the time," and added, "It is difficult to believe that A could not have predicted that B might be defecating or urinating in the stall." Furthermore, the court noted, "B testified that he experienced significant mental shock and sexual shame," and concluded, "The act of stepping on the toilet seat in the adjacent stall and peeking into the friend's bathroom stall itself constitutes a violation of the victim's sexual self-determination against their will."