I suffered from school violence for months, but finally got a ‘written apology’?… Court: “It’s not valid.”

Even after several months of school violence through sparring, swearing, and face-making, the lowest ‘No. 1 disposition’ was received.
Law "It is unfair to consider an act that has been repeated for several months as not serious based on individual judgment."

The court ruled that the ‘soft punishment’ given to the perpetrator was unfair after individually judging the school violence that had been repeated for several months.

According to the legal community on the 12th, the 1st and 2nd administrative divisions of the Incheon District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by teenager A against the superintendent of the Incheon Southern District Office of Education on January 22 to cancel the written apology.

Previously, when the School Violence Countermeasures Review Committee issued a written apology (No. 1), the lowest level, to student B, student A, he objected and filed an administrative lawsuit.

It is reported that Group A has been subjected to physical and mental harassment by Group B and his group since 2024. At that time, it was investigated that Group B and others used violence against Group A under the pretext of ‘sparring’ (exchanging blows with an opponent in boxing).

Afterwards, Group A's parents received a pledge to prevent recurrence from the offending student, but Group B continued to harass Group A by swearing at him or criticizing him in front of the students around him.

Ultimately, Person A reported the damage to the school. However, the school violence committee issued a written apology (No. 1), the lowest level, on the grounds that the profanity used by group B was a common expression used by students, and the remarks encouraging bullying were not directly aimed at group A.

In response, Group A protested, saying, “This is a rash disposition taken without a proper investigation,” and argued that stronger measures are needed.

The Office of Education responded by saying that it had obtained sufficient statements from the parties involved and the students who witnessed it and conducted a thorough investigation. In addition, he emphasized that the investigation cannot be considered inadequate simply because A's claim was not accepted, and that the School Violence Countermeasures Review Committee cannot impose disciplinary action based solely on uncertain circumstances or speculation.

However, the court ruled in Group A’s favor. The court ruled, “Even if the remarks were not directly directed at the plaintiff (Group A), looking at the entire context, there is ample room to view them as words and actions intended to exclude the plaintiff from a public place and intentionally cause humiliation.”

He continued, “It is not reasonable to deny intentionality from the perspective of considering an act repeated for several months as not serious when judged individually,” and added, “Imposing a disposition without even confirming additional facts just because the statements of both sides are conflicting and there is no evidence is a serious error in the basic judgment elements.”

Mr. A's legal representative, Kim Dong-jin, a lawyer at the Daeryun Law Firm, said, "The regulations for handling school violence cases define bullying and ridicule as types of bullying, but the Office of Education only judged whether this constituted verbal violence and did not review whether it was bullying." He added, "Even though Mr. B's remarks seemed ordinary on the outside, we were able to win the case by proving that behind them there was an intention to persistently isolate and ridicule Mr. A."

Reporter Lee Sil-yu lsy0808@kyeonggi.com

[View full article]
Gyeonggi Ilbo - After suffering from school violence for months, only a 'written apology'?... Court: “It is not valid” (Shortcut)
Herald Economy - The Office of Education says, ‘Get an apology and end it’ to the victims of terrible school violence… Court “Disposition is unfair” (Shortcut)