Case concerning whether a teacher's conduct in the course of education constitutes an act of abuse prohibited under the Child Welfare Act

【Holding】

[1] The meaning of an act of physical abuse prohibited under the Child Welfare Act, and whether such an act is recognized only where there was a purpose or intent of physical abuse against the child (negative)

[2] Where a teacher's act of causing a student who is a child to feel physical pain in the course of educating the student falls within the scope of education under the relevant statutes, whether it constitutes a violation of Article 17, subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act (negative) / Whether the same legal principle applies to a teacher's act of guiding a student who is a child in accordance with educational necessity (affirmative) / Where a teacher's act of guiding a student who is a child is in accordance with the purport of the relevant statutes and school regulations and is recognized as objectively reasonable, whether it falls within the scope of educational acts under the relevant statutes (affirmative), and whether the conclusion differs merely because the act of guidance was accompanied by some degree of physical force, so long as it does not constitute corporal punishment prohibited under Article 31(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (negative)

[3] In a case where the defendant, a homeroom teacher at an elementary school, was charged with committing an act of physical abuse that damages a child's body or harms the child's physical health and development, in that the defendant, in the classroom, shouted "Hey, stand up" at the victim child on the ground that the child was not doing the movements during dance-movement time, and grabbed the child's arm hard and pulled it upward in an attempt to make the child stand up, the Court held that the lower court's judgment finding the defendant guilty of the charged facts erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, among other things

【Summary of Decision】

[1] Taking into comprehensive account the legislative purpose and basic ideals of the Child Welfare Act and the contents of Article 1, Article 2(3), Article 3, subparagraph 7, and Article 17, subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act, an act of physical abuse prohibited under the Child Welfare Act refers to "physical violence or cruel treatment that harms the physical health or welfare of a child, or impedes the child's normal physical development, or creates a risk of causing such a result"; it is not recognized only where there was a purpose or intent of physical abuse against the child, and it suffices that the actor had at least dolus eventualis, that is, an awareness that there is a risk or possibility that the actor's own conduct would result in impeding the child's health and development.

[2] Where the question arises whether a teacher's conduct in the course of education toward a student who is a child constitutes an act of abuse prohibited under the Child Welfare Act, a harmonious interpretation between the Child Welfare Act and the education-related statutes is required. Under the Framework Act on Education, the purpose of education is to enable all citizens, under the ideal of Hongik Ingan (benefiting all humankind), to cultivate their character, to acquire the capacity for an independent life and the qualities necessary as democratic citizens, thereby enabling them to lead a humane life and contributing to the development of a democratic state and the realization of the ideal of the co-prosperity of humankind (Article 2), and school education must be conducted with an emphasis on whole-person education, including the development of students' creativity and the cultivation of their character (Article 9(3)). The fundamental human rights of students shall be respected and protected in the course of school education, and the contents of education, teaching methods, teaching materials, and educational facilities shall be prepared so as to respect the personality of learners, value their individuality, and enable learners' abilities to be exercised to the fullest (Article 12(1) and (2)). Meanwhile, teachers educate students as prescribed by the relevant statutes (Article 20(4) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). Taking these statutory provisions together, a teacher's act of educating a student who is a child as prescribed by the relevant statutes is an act that contributes to the welfare of the student, such as by enabling the student to cultivate character and to acquire the capacity for an independent life and the qualities of a democratic citizen, and therefore, absent special circumstances, it cannot be evaluated as an "act of abuse" prohibited by the Child Welfare Act. Accordingly, even if a teacher caused a student who is a child to feel physical pain in the course of educating the student, it cannot be said that the teacher violated Article 17, subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act if the act falls within the scope of education under the relevant statutes.

The same legal principle applies to a teacher's act of guiding a student who is a child in accordance with educational necessity. The main text of Article 18(1) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 17954 of March 23, 2021; the same applies hereinafter) provides that "the head of a school may, where necessary for educational purposes, discipline students or guide them by other means as prescribed by the relevant statutes and school regulations," and Article 31(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (prior to amendment by Presidential Decree No. 33566 of June 27, 2023; the same applies hereinafter), enacted pursuant to the delegation thereunder, provided that "when the head of a school provides guidance pursuant to the main text of Article 18(1) of the Act, he or she shall do so by means of discipline, admonition, or the like as prescribed by the school regulations, and shall not use any method that inflicts pain on a student's body using an instrument, the body, or the like"; therefore, a teacher's act of guiding a student who is a child as prescribed by the relevant statutes and school regulations constitutes an educational act under the relevant statutes.

Furthermore, statutes and school regulations cannot exhaustively prescribe appropriate methods suited to specific situations for every case, and there are inevitably limits to responding appropriately to diverse real-life situations with fixed rules alone. In school education, the professionalism and authority of teachers must be respected (Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on Education; Article 43(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act), and a person must possess the qualifications prescribed by law in order to become a teacher (Article 21(2) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act); accordingly, teachers have a certain degree of discretion with respect to acts of guidance. Therefore, if a teacher's act of guiding a student who is a child is in accordance with the purport of the relevant statutes and school regulations and is recognized as objectively reasonable, it still falls within the scope of educational acts under the relevant statutes, and the conclusion does not differ merely because the act of guidance was accompanied by some degree of physical force, so long as it does not constitute corporal punishment prohibited under Article 31(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

[3] In a case where the defendant, a homeroom teacher at an elementary school, was charged with committing an act of physical abuse that damages a child's body or harms the child's physical health and development, in that the defendant, in the classroom, shouted "Hey, stand up" at the victim child on the ground that the child was not doing the movements during dance-movement time, and grabbed the child's arm hard and pulled it upward in an attempt to make the child stand up, the Court held that the lower court's judgment finding the defendant guilty of the charged facts erred by misapprehending the legal principles concerning an "act of physical abuse" under Article 17, subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act and "the relationship between educational acts under the relevant statutes and acts of abuse," among other things, taking into comprehensive account the following: the defendant's act constituted a teacher's act of guiding a student, carried out on the basis of the purpose of encouraging the victim child to participate in an essential educational activity; it is difficult to find that the defendant intended to inflict corporal punishment or physical pain on the victim child, and in light of the manner and degree of the physical force exercised by the defendant, it is difficult to regard the defendant's act as prohibited under Article 31(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (prior to amendment by Presidential Decree No. 33566 of June 27, 2023); and although the school regulations of the elementary school in question were not submitted, the defendant appears to have judged, in light of the circumstances at the time, that it would be difficult to achieve that purpose by means excluding physical contact, such as verbal instructions alone, and to have chosen the method of guidance the defendant considered appropriate within the scope of the reasonable discretion held as a teacher, so that, in light of the purport of the education-related statutes, there is considerable room to regard the defendant's act as an objectively reasonable educational act.

【Referenced Statutes】

[1] Article 1, Article 2(3), Article 3, subparagraph 7, and Article 17, subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act [2] Article 1, Article 2(3), Article 3, subparagraph 7, and Article 17, subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act; Articles 2, 9(3), 12(1) and (2), and 14(1) of the Framework Act on Education; Article 20(4) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Articles 18(1) and 21(2) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 17954 of March 23, 2021); Article 31(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (prior to amendment by Presidential Decree No. 33566 of June 27, 2023) (see current Article 40-3); Article 43(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act [3] Article 1, Article 2(3), Article 3, subparagraph 7, Article 17, subparagraph 3, and Article 71(1), subparagraph 2 of the Child Welfare Act; Articles 2, 9(3), 12(1) and (2), and 14(1) of the Framework Act on Education; Article 20(4) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Articles 18(1) and 21(2) of the former Elementary and Secondary Education Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 17954 of March 23, 2021); Article 31(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (prior to amendment by Presidential Decree No. 33566 of June 27, 2023) (see current Article 40-3); Article 43(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act