Teacher Acquitted of Child Abuse for Muttering "No XXX" to Student Who Slammed Desk

First and Second Trials: Guilty Verdict
Supreme Court Remand Leads to Acquittal
Court: "Remark Made in Response to Class Disruption... Discretion Recognized"
"Although Inappropriate, Not Harmful to Mental Health"

A teacher who uttered a curse under their breath towards an elementary school student who caused a disturbance in class out of dissatisfaction with the teacher's instructions has been acquitted after more than two years of legal battles and a retrial following a Supreme Court remand.

On October 22, the Gwangju District Court Criminal Division 4 (Presiding Judge Bae Eun-chang) overturned the previous rulings and found elementary school teacher A (60), who had been indicted for violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) and received a suspended fine of 500,000 won in both the first and second trials, not guilty in the retrial after remand.

Teacher A, who was working at an elementary school in Gwangju, instructed fourth-grade student B in May 2022 to put his mobile phone in his bag. When B did not comply, the teacher confiscated the phone. B then became irritated, slammed his desk, and caused a disturbance. After calming B down, teacher A left the classroom to contact the student's parent and muttered under their breath, "XXX eomneun XX" (an offensive remark).

Teacher A was brought to trial on charges of emotional abuse in the presence of other students. In court, teacher A admitted to having made the remark out of embarrassment at the student's reaction, but argued that there was no intention to insult or emotionally abuse the student.

The first and second trials found A guilty and suspended the imposition of a 500,000 won fine. The first trial court stated, "Objectively, the act constitutes emotional abuse that deviates from the purpose or scope of discipline and poses a risk of harming the child's mental health and development," adding, "At the very least, the defendant acted with conditional intent." The second trial court dismissed both A's and the prosecution's appeals, upholding the first trial's decision.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. While acknowledging that teacher A's remark was inappropriate, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not warrant punishment as child abuse. The Supreme Court stated, "As the homeroom teacher, the defendant has a certain degree of discretion in guiding the student. Pointing out the student's misconduct on the spot does not appear to exceed the scope of that discretion."

The retrial court, following the Supreme Court's reasoning, stated, "The defendant's remark was made in response to the student violating class rules and, when confronted, disrupting the class by hitting the desk with his elbow, thereby infringing upon the teacher's authority. Disciplining such behavior on the spot cannot be seen as exceeding the teacher's discretion," adding, "Although the remark was inappropriate, it is difficult to conclude that it posed a risk to the child's mental health or emotional development."