The behavior of a teacher who pulled an elementary student’s arm for not participating in class was not considered child abuse, according to a Supreme Court ruling.
On the 4th, according to legal circles, the second division of the Supreme Court (presided over by Justice Oh Kyung-mi) recently overturned the original judgment, which sentenced elementary school teacher A to a fine of 1 million won on charges of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), and sent the case back to the Uijeongbu District Court.
In September 2013, a student in A’s class did not participate in a rhythm class and did not move to the cafeteria during lunchtime. A was accused of physically abusing the child by sharply grabbing the student’s arm to stand him up and shouting, “Hey, stand up,” in the process of encouraging class participation.
In the first and second trials, the court deemed A’s actions as child abuse, stating that it was difficult to see the situation as necessitating physical force when other educational means like conversation or non-physical disciplinary measures could have been used, and imposed a fine of 1 million won.
However, the Supreme Court’s judgment was different. It viewed A’s actions as legitimate discipline to encourage class participation. The Supreme Court stated that “even if the student was caused physical discomfort during the educational process, as long as it falls within the educational scope stipulated by law, without special circumstances, the teacher’s actions cannot be considered a violation of the Child Welfare Act.”
The Supreme Court considered factors such as the student’s complete lack of participation in class, the disobedience of instructions to move to the cafeteria, and A’s phone call to the student’s parents seeking consent by saying, “If I use more force, it seems like they will get hurt, so I cannot bring them,” to conclude that A’s actions were an instructional move based on the purpose of encouraging necessary educational activities.
The court further stated, “Judging that it would be difficult to achieve the purpose only through means excluding physical contact, it seems that A chose a guidance method deemed appropriate within the reasonable discretion a teacher holds, leaving room to consider it as an educational act,” thereby overturning the second trial’s judgment.