Case concerning whether a teacher's act done for disciplinary purposes constitutes an "act of emotional abuse"

【Holding】

Whether an act of a school teacher, even if done for the purpose of discipline or guidance, constitutes an "act of emotional abuse" prohibited under Article 17, subparagraph 5 of the former Child Welfare Act where it 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 creates a risk of causing such a result (affirmative, with limitations) / The standard for determining whether such an act by a teacher is a case that is not contrary to social norms and thus its illegality is precluded

【Summary of Decision】

Even if an act of a school teacher was done for the purpose of discipline or guidance, if it 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 creates a risk of causing 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 (prior to amendment by Act No. 18619 of December 21, 2021), unless the act followed the purport of the relevant statutes and school regulations, such as by complying with the requirements and procedures within the scope permitted by the elementary and secondary education statutes and the school regulations.

Meanwhile, even such an act by a teacher may have its illegality precluded where it is not contrary to social norms; however, in determining whether this is the case, comprehensive consideration must be given to whether the act was done not out of a malicious or negative attitude of the teacher toward the student but for educational necessity, the guarantee of educational activities, the maintenance of order within the school, and the like; whether it was done within a scope that respects and protects the student's fundamental human rights and mental and physical sensitivities; whether, in light of the repetition or duration of the same or similar acts, it can be evaluated as having been done within a reasonable scope in which the necessity of education is recognized; whether there were urgent circumstances that made 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 other factors.

【Referenced Statutes】

Article 17, subparagraph 5 and Article 71(1), subparagraph 2 of the former Child Welfare Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 18619 of December 21, 2021); Article 20 of the Criminal Act

【Referenced Precedents】

Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5769, March 12, 2020 (Gong 2020Sang, 794)

(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2020Do12920, September 12, 2024 [Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes (Aggravated Punishment for Child Abuse by Employees of Child Welfare Facilities, etc.)] > Comprehensive Legal Information System, Precedents)