Why did the teenager who filed a lawsuit to cancel the school violence case win?

Ms. A was punished by the School Violence Commission on charges of inflicting school violence on three of her friends.
Court “Most acts are not recognized as school violence… abuse of discretion”

A teenager who had been disciplined as a perpetrator of school violence filed a lawsuit against the educational authorities to cancel the punishment and won.

On the 11th of last month, the Uijeongbu District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by teenager A against the superintendent of Gyeonggi-do Guri Namyangju Office of Education to cancel the disposition of a school violence offender.

Previously, Ms. A was pointed out as a perpetrator of school violence by three friends from the same school last year.

Reasons such as intentionally alienating a specific person from a group of friends, creating a social media group chat room excluding one person to gossip about them behind their back, or causing embarrassment in a public place were cited as reasons.

Accordingly, the School Violence Measures Review Committee ordered Miss A to perform 3 hours of school volunteer work, complete 2 hours of special education, and prohibit contact, threats, or retaliation against the victim until graduation.

Both sides protested against the school violence committee's decision.

The School Violence Committee took action based on the assumption that things that were not true were true, and the intention was that some of the plaintiff's actions could not be considered school violence beyond everyday fights or conflicts that occur in peer relationships.

In addition, both parties claimed that the School Violence Committee deviated and abused its discretion in the process of considering the intentionality, seriousness, and persistence of school violence by gathering together and deliberating cases with different periods, characteristics, and parties involved.

The court ruled in favor of Party A.

There were a total of ten acts committed by Ms. A that the School Violence Committee used as the basis for its disposition, and most of them were recognized as school violence even though they could not be assessed as school violence as defined by the School Violence Prevention Act.

The court also added, "The defendant assessed the plaintiff's actions toward each of the victims as bullying on a continuous basis, but the actions toward two of the three victims cannot be recognized as school violence. Although one other victim who was unilaterally excluded from the group room appears to have suffered mental distress, we took into account the fact that the conflict between the two does not appear to have originated from the plaintiff's one-sided bullying."

Lawyer Kim Ho-jeong of Daeryun Law Firm, who was in charge of Ms. A's legal representation, explained, "The School Violence Commission did not specify the reason for the disposition in detail regarding the content, extent, frequency, or circumstances of the school violence act," and added, "It was emphasized that the disposition itself cannot be seen as premised on an accurate evaluation of Ms. A's actions, so it has significantly lost its validity in terms of social norms."

#School violence disposition #Cancellation lawsuit #Court unfairness #Accident

Park Seok-ho (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)

[View full article]

Why did the teenager who filed a lawsuit to cancel the "unfair disposition of school violence win"?