“The Court Respects the Judgment… The Decision on an Appeal will be Made by the Prosecution”
Webtoon artist Joo Ho-min is seen responding to a question from the press after observing the first trial sentencing of special education teacher A, who was charged with violating the Child Abuse Punishment Act, at Suwon District Court in Yeongtong-gu, Suwon City, on February 1, 2024. © Yonhap News
A special education teacher who was previously convicted of emotionally abusing the son of webtoon artist Joo Ho-min in the first trial was acquitted in the appeal trial. Mr. Joo expressed his feelings by saying, “I’m very upset.”
Mr. Joo, along with his wife, attended the appeal sentencing of special teacher A, charged with violations of the Child Abuse Punishment Act and the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, conducted by the 6-2 Criminal Division of Suwon District Court (Presided by Judges Kim Eun-jung, Kang Hee-gyeong, and Kwak Hyeong-seop) on the 13th. He then communicated his position to the media.
Regarding the outcome of this appeal, Mr. Joo said, “It seems that the outcome changed because the evidentiary capacity acknowledged in the first trial was not accepted in the second trial,” adding, “It is very upsetting, but I respect the court’s judgment.”
Mr. Joo further emphasized, “This verdict made me realize how difficult it is to prove when a disabled child is harmed (at school). It seems that various system improvements are necessary.”
Regarding the plan to appeal, Mr. Joo cautiously remarked, “The prosecution will decide, and I plan to respond calmly once a decision is made.”
Meanwhile, teacher A was accused of emotionally abusing Mr. Joo’s son, A-gun (then 9 years old), by saying comments like, “You have very bad habits. Ugh, I hate it. I could die from dislike. I dislike you. I also hate you. Really hate it,” in a customized learning class at an elementary school in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, on September 13, 2022.
The crux of the case hinged on whether to recognize the recorded file secretly taped by one party as legal evidence. Mr. Joo’s side had reported A to the police based on the teacher’s voice recorded on a device placed in their son’s coat.
In the first trial, the court recognized the evidentiary capacity of the recorded file and deferred the imposition of a fine of 2 million won on teacher A. A deferment of sentencing involves postponing the sentence of relatively minor offenses, which, if a certain period passes from the deferment date, are virtually nullified.
The first court ruling highlighted the recorded file as being a ‘conversation between others that wasn’t open to the public,’ and yet acknowledged the recording act by the mother (Joo’s wife) as justifiable, considering it was difficult to verify abuse signs other than through recording in emotional abuse cases. Additional reasons for this ruling included the son’s autism which affected his self-defense ability, and the mother’s felt necessity to verify suspected abuse due to her son behaving out of character.
However, the second trial court overruled the initial judgment and acquitted A. The court pointed out that the recorded file of the conversation between A and Joo’s son “constitutes ‘conversations between others not open to the public,’ violating the Communication Secrets Protection Act, thus it cannot be used as evidence.”