[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 establish the substantive truth and impose a disposition commensurate with it. There have long been concerns that establishing the facts in school violence cases is not easy, and as a remedy, in February 2024 the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools and its Enforcement Decree were amended 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 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, from the moment an investigative agency opens an investigation, specialized personnel are deployed and considerable time and effort are spent to establish the facts accurately.

In school violence cases, by contrast, establishing the facts is often extremely difficult. For instance, not only do the statements of the aggressor student and the victim student conflict, but the statements of student bystanders also waver. Nor are CCTV footage and other evidence within schools sufficient. On top of that, existing teachers had been shouldering this role, which led to conflicts with parents and even suspicions of cover-ups, among many other difficulties.

Under the amended Enforcement Decree, dedicated investigators will not only conduct in-person interviews with the aggressor student, the victim student, their guardians, and the teacher in charge, prepare a case investigation report, and report to the school's dedicated body and the education office's School Violence Zero Center, but will also appear before the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee to give statements. The introduction of the dedicated investigator system is expected to secure objectivity and neutrality in school violence case investigations.

At the same time, some voices have expressed concern about the introduction of the ‘dedicated investigator system.’ Until last year, more than half of all school violence cases nationwide were closed through resolution by the school principal, and there is concern that outside intervention by dedicated investigators could make such internal resolution more difficult. Others worry that it will hinder schools' autonomous resolution and accelerate the judicialization of school violence.

With the introduction of the dedicated investigator system, the early response to school violence is expected to become even more important. Because a dedicated investigator's case investigation is regarded as more objective and neutral than those conducted by teachers, it will be difficult to overturn without clear contrary evidence. In the past, the facts were frequently debated and settled at the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee, but going forward the influence and importance of the dedicated investigator's case investigation are expected to grow.

Moreover, with the involvement of outside personnel, the contest is expected to shift from mere assertions to a fiercer battle over objective evidence. Whereas the facts were often established based on the various circumstances surrounding a case, school violence matters will now be viewed from the objective perspective of a third party. In other words, the outcome of a disposition is now more likely to depend not only on the early response but also on the extent to which evidence is collected and secured. (Attorney Shin Dong-woo, Taerim Law Firm, Seoul Head Office)

Source: MediaFine (https://www.mediafine.co.kr)