"I Didn't Know I Couldn't Hit Students": Teacher Loses Lawsuit to Overturn Pay Cut for Corporal Punishment of Elementary Students

Struck Third and Fourth Graders with Plastic Ruler and More
Filed Administrative Lawsuit Against One-Month Pay Reduction Disciplinary Action

A teacher who struck third and fourth grade elementary school students with a plastic ruler and a badminton racket for misbehaving during class filed an administrative lawsuit to contest a pay reduction disciplinary action, but lost the case.

According to a report by Yonhap News on June 22, the Administrative Division 1 of the Chuncheon District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Byungchul) ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by teacher A against the head of the Wonju Office of Education, seeking the cancellation of the disciplinary action.

In May 2023, A was prosecuted on charges of calling a third-grade student to the front of the classroom during class for misbehaving with a friend, making the student lie on the floor, and then striking the student's calves ten times and thigh once with a plastic ruler. On the following days, A was also accused of striking the student's palms and calves with a plastic ruler for similar reasons. Previously, in September 2022, A had struck a fourth-grade student once on the back and once on the arm with the broad side of a badminton racket after the student got into a fight while playing with a friend in the classroom. As a result, A received a protective disposition from the court, including 40 hours of community service and 40 hours of child abuse prevention education, as well as a one-month pay reduction disciplinary action from the Wonju Office of Education. After receiving the disciplinary action, A requested a review by the Teachers' Appeals Committee, but when the request was dismissed, A filed the administrative lawsuit.

During the trial, A argued, "I only lightly struck the students to protect the educational rights of other students after warning those who were talking or misbehaving during class, and it does not constitute child abuse." However, the court did not accept A's argument. The court stated that, based on the evidence from the child protection case in which A received a protective disposition, there were no circumstances to support A's claims. Additionally, relevant laws prohibit the use of tools or physical means to inflict pain on students as a method of discipline. The court also noted that, considering the nature of A's actions and the number of times corporal punishment was administered, a heavier disciplinary action such as demotion could have been warranted under the disciplinary standards. However, since A received only a minor disciplinary action, the court found no grounds to consider the disciplinary action unjustified or to conclude that the disciplinary authority had abused its discretion.

The court stated, "As a teacher, A had a duty to sincerely guide students to grow into individuals of good character and to help them establish proper ethics and values. However, A undermined public trust in the teaching profession as a whole, which justifies the need for disciplinary measures." The court added, "Furthermore, the plaintiff made statements in court such as claiming not to know that teachers are prohibited from administering corporal punishment, which raises doubts about A's basic qualifications as an educational leader," and dismissed the claim.