Victim With Four-Week Injury Labeled Perpetrator? Education Office’s ‘Mutual Assault’ Decision Overturned

Court Finds Major Error in Educational Authorities' Judgment
Points Out "Misidentification of Basic Facts"

A teenager who was disciplined after being accused of being a perpetrator of school violence has won a lawsuit against the educational authorities, claiming the punishment was unjust.

According to Yonhap News on May 14, the Incheon District Court Administrative Division 1-1 (Presiding Judge Kim Seongsu) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a 16-year-old boy, referred to as A, against the head of the Seobu Office of Education in Incheon, seeking to overturn the disciplinary action taken against him as a perpetrator of school violence.

The photo is not related to the specific content of the article.

According to Yonhap News, on March 17, 2023, when A was in his second year of middle school, he was verbally abused by another student, B, regarding his parents in front of other students on his way to school. He was also assaulted at school.

At that time, B assaulted A inside the school by knocking him to the ground, climbing on top of him, and hitting him in the face. A was diagnosed at a hospital with injuries requiring four weeks of recovery.

The school became aware of these facts and decided to provide temporary protection and psychological counseling for A as a victim of school violence. However, two months later, on May 15, B reported to the school that he had been subjected to school violence by A and requested the convening of the School Violence Countermeasures Committee.

B claimed, "On March 17, in front of other students, A insulted my parents and struck my uvula with a mobile phone. Afterwards, even as other students were watching, he said, 'If you're going to hit me, go ahead, so I can get some money.'"

Based on B's claims, the Office of Education, after reviewing the case through the School Violence Committee, determined that both A and B were perpetrators of school violence. A was notified that he would be required to perform four hours of school service, was prohibited from contacting, threatening, or retaliating against the victim, and that both he and his guardian would be required to attend two hours of special education. The authorities decided that B would be required to perform two hours of community service and that both he and his guardian would also be required to attend two hours of special education.

A appealed this decision by filing an administrative appeal. However, the administrative appeals committee of the city office of education only partially adjusted the service hours and continued to classify A as a perpetrator of school violence.

In response, A argued that striking B with a mobile phone was a simple act of self-defense intended to protect himself. He also claimed, "During the School Violence Committee's review, B and the witnesses repeatedly gave false statements, yet the Seobu Office of Education made an incorrect decision," and filed an administrative lawsuit.

The court accepted A's argument and found that there was a significant error in the educational authorities' judgment. The court stated, "A's act of striking B with a mobile phone was a passive act of resistance against the perpetrator's violence and does not constitute school violence under the School Violence Prevention Act. B is physically larger and stronger than A, and according to statements from other students, B lifted A up at the time."

The court further stated, "The decision of the School Violence Committee of the Office of Education in this case contains a significant error in the basic elements of judgment. The disciplinary action based on this is illegal, as it constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power to the extent that it is no longer justifiable by social standards."

The court also pointed out that the committee misidentified the basic facts, even though the defendant's actions did not constitute school violence. The court explained the reasoning for its decision, stating, "Although A was the primary victim, the committee evaluated his level of remorse as 'average' simply because he objected to being classified as a case of 'mutual assault,' and the scores for persistence and intentionality were also inappropriately assigned."