[Case in which the issues included whether a teacher's act done for the purpose of discipline constitutes an ‘act of emotional abuse’]

【Holding】
Where an act of a school teacher, even if done for the purpose of discipline or guidance, amounts to mental violence or cruel treatment that harms the mental health or welfare of a student who is a child or impedes the normal development of the student's mental health, or reaches the degree of creating a risk of bringing about such a result, whether it constitutes an ‘act of emotional abuse’ prohibited under Article 17 subparagraph 5 of the former Child Welfare Act (affirmative with qualification) / The standard for determining whether such an act of a teacher constitutes a case not contrary to social norms so that its illegality is precluded

【Summary of Decision】
Where an act of a school teacher, even if done for the purpose of discipline or guidance, amounts to mental violence or cruel treatment that harms the mental health or welfare of a student who is a child or impedes the normal development of the student's mental health, or reaches the degree of creating a risk of bringing about such a result, it must be regarded as constituting an ‘act of emotional abuse’ prohibited under Article 17 subparagraph 5 of the former Child Welfare Act (before amended by Act No. 18619 on December 21, 2021), unless the act followed the purport of the statutes and school regulations, such as by complying with the requirements and procedures within the scope permitted by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its subordinate statutes and the school regulations.
Meanwhile, such an act of a teacher may also have its illegality precluded where it is not contrary to social norms; however, in determining whether this is the case, the following must be comprehensively considered: whether the act did not arise from the teacher's malicious or negative attitude toward the student but was an act for educational necessity, the guarantee of educational activities, the maintenance of order within the school, or the like; whether it was carried out within a scope that respects and protects the student's fundamental human rights and mental and physical sensitivity; whether, in light of the repetition or duration of the same or similar acts, it can be evaluated as having been carried out within a reasonable scope in which educational necessity is recognized; whether there were urgent circumstances making it impossible to comply with the purport of the statutes and school regulations; and, in addition, the student's age, disposition, state of health, state of mental development, and the like.

【Referenced Statutes】
Article 17 subparagraph 5 and Article 71(1) subparagraph 2 of the former Child Welfare Act (before amended by Act No. 18619 on December 21, 2021), Article 20 of the Criminal Act

【Referenced Precedents】
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5769, March 12, 2020 (Gong 2020Sang, 794)