Teacher Who Muttered "Rude" to Elementary Student... Supreme Court: "Not Child Abuse"

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is difficult to punish a teacher for child abuse for muttering profanity to an elementary school student who caused a disturbance in class and did not follow instructions.

According to the legal community on August 10, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Ma Yongju) recently overturned a lower court's decision that had suspended a fine imposed on elementary school teacher A, who was indicted for violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), and sent the case back to the Gwangju District Court.

In May 2022, at an elementary school in Gwangju, A confiscated the mobile phone of fourth-grade student B after B failed to comply with instructions to put the phone in his bag.

B then banged on his desk in frustration. In the presence of other students, A muttered to herself, "There is no one as rude as this XX," and was subsequently put on trial on charges of emotional abuse.

Both the first and second trials suspended a fine of 500,000 won for A.

The appellate court ruled, "Objectively, this constitutes emotional abuse as it deviates from the purpose or scope of discipline and poses a risk of harming or actually harms the victim child's mental health and development."

However, the Supreme Court's view differed.

The Supreme Court explained, "A's remarks can be seen as inappropriate and as behavior that could cause discomfort to the victim child."

The court further stated, "However, it is difficult to conclude that this alone constitutes emotional abuse?meaning conduct that amounts to mental violence or cruel treatment to the extent of impairing or posing a risk of impairing the victim child's mental health and development?or that there is sufficient evidence to prove A had the intent to emotionally abuse the victim child."

The court also added, "While it can be considered inappropriate for A to have made such remarks in the course of taking educational measures such as admonishment or discipline, there is no indication that A intended to demean the victim child's character."

Additionally, the court noted, "There is room to view that A's comments were made either to sternly correct the victim child, who was unable to control his emotions while emphasizing the seriousness of his behavior that violated rules and etiquette, or that they were closer to a muttered complaint or lamentation arising from the realities and difficulties of the educational environment."