[MediaFine Current Affairs Column] One of the most important things in a criminal trial is the substantive truth. School violence is not much different. Even in a conflict between students, it is important to uncover the substantive truth and impose a disposition commensurate with it. Many have long pointed out that establishing the facts in school violence cases is not easy, and as a remedy, the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools and its Enforcement Decree were amended in February 2024 to introduce the dedicated school violence investigator system.

At first glance, school violence resembles a criminal dispute. In a criminal trial, evidence of guilt must be strict evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act, and its probative value must be sufficient to give the judge a conviction that leaves no room for reasonable doubt. Accordingly, from the moment an investigative agency begins an investigation, specialized personnel are deployed to accurately establish the facts, consuming a great deal of time and effort.

In school violence cases, by contrast, establishing the facts is often extremely difficult. For example, not only do the statements of the perpetrating student and the victimized student conflict, but the statements of student bystanders also waver. Nor are CCTV footage or other evidence within the school necessarily sufficient. Worse, because existing teachers handled this role, conflicts with parents arose and there were many difficulties, including suspicions of covering up incidents.

Under the amended Enforcement Decree, the dedicated investigator conducts in-person interviews with the perpetrating student, the victimized student, their guardians and the teacher in charge, then prepares a case investigation report and submits it to the school's dedicated body and the education office's School Violence Zero Center; the investigator also appears before the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee to give a statement. The introduction of the dedicated investigator system is expected to secure objectivity and neutrality in school violence case investigations.

On the other hand, there are also voices of concern about the introduction of the 'dedicated investigator system.' Until last year, more than half of school violence cases nationwide were closed through resolution by the school principal, and the worry is that if a dedicated investigator intervenes from outside, resolution by the principal may become more difficult. Concerns have also been raised that it will hinder autonomous resolution by schools and accelerate the judicialization of school violence.

With the introduction of the dedicated investigator system, the initial response to school violence is expected to become even more important. Because a dedicated investigator's case investigation is regarded as having secured objectivity and neutrality compared with investigations by existing teachers, it is difficult to overturn such an investigation without clear contrary evidence. Previously, it was common for the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee to discuss and settle the facts, but going forward, the influence and importance of the dedicated investigator's case investigation are expected to grow.

In addition, the involvement of an outside party is expected to make the battle over objective evidence, rather than mere assertions, even fiercer. Whereas the facts were often established on the basis of various circumstances surrounding the case, school violence cases will now be viewed from the objective perspective of a third party. In other words, the likelihood has grown that the outcome of a disposition will depend not only on the initial response to school violence but also on the extent to which evidence is collected and secured. (Attorney Shin Dong-woo, Law Firm Taerim, Seoul Main Office)