【Holding】

In a case where, following a report by high school student A that A had suffered school violence from B and others, the School Violence Countermeasures Autonomous Committee convened and deliberated and resolved to request the school principal to take measures against B, including a written apology to the victim student under Article 17(1) subparagraph 1 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence and a prohibition of contact with, intimidation of, and retaliation against the victim student under subparagraph 2 thereof, and the school principal took the measures resolved by the Autonomous Committee against B and notified B thereof, the above deliberation and resolution was made by an unlawfully constituted School Violence Countermeasures Autonomous Committee, and the school principal's above disposition against B based thereon is unlawful

【Summary of Decision】


This is a case in which, following a report by high school student A that A had suffered school violence from B and others, the School Violence Countermeasures Autonomous Committee (hereinafter the ‘Autonomous Committee’) convened and deliberated and resolved to request the school principal to take measures against B, including a written apology to the victim student under Article 17(1) subparagraph 1 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (before amended by Act No. 16441 on August 20, 2019; hereinafter the ‘former School Violence Prevention Act’) and a prohibition of contact with, intimidation of, and retaliation against the victim student under subparagraph 2 thereof, and the school principal took the measures resolved by the Autonomous Committee against B and notified B thereof.

The Court held that the above deliberation and resolution was made by an unlawfully constituted Autonomous Committee, and that the school principal's above disposition against B based thereon is unlawful, on the following grounds: one parent-representative member of the Autonomous Committee was elected not at a general meeting of all parents but at a meeting of parent representatives composed of representatives of each class, and since there was a period of approximately two months between the resignation of the previous parent-representative member and the convening of the Autonomous Committee, it is difficult to find that it was impracticable to hold a general meeting of all parents in the meantime, so that the election of the above parent-representative member was unlawful as contrary to Article 13(1) of the former School Violence Prevention Act; and under Article 14 of the former School Violence Prevention Act, a professional counseling teacher or a teacher in charge of school violence is a person in the position of reporting, at the request of the school principal and the Autonomous Committee, the results of counseling with the victim student and the perpetrator student involved in the school violence, or of confirming, as a member of the dedicated organ constituted by the school principal, whether the perpetration and victimization in the school violence incident actually occurred and reporting the matters so confirmed to the school principal and the Autonomous Committee, so that a professional counseling teacher or a teacher in charge of school violence who performed counseling and investigation duties in the case concerned cannot be said to be guaranteed the fairness and independence in the performance of duties required of a member of the Autonomous Committee and, in light of the structure of investigation, reporting, and deliberation in school violence cases, is not qualified to serve as a member of the Autonomous Committee, and yet the teacher in charge of school violence participated as a member of the Autonomous Committee at the time of the above deliberation and resolution; accordingly, the above deliberation and resolution was made by an Autonomous Committee that was unlawfully constituted, in that one parent representative and the teacher in charge of school violence, neither of whom was qualified to be a member, participated as members, and moreover the lawfully elected parent-representative members fell short of a majority of all members.

【Referenced Statutes】

Article 13(1), Article 14, and Article 17(1) of the former Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against School Violence (before amended by Act No. 16441 on August 20, 2019)

(Source: Jeju District Court Decision 2019Guhap6370, December 15, 2020 : Final [Revocation of Disposition against Student Perpetrator of School Violence] > Comprehensive Legal Information, Precedents)