'Even Without the “Covert Recording”...’ Homeroom Teacher’s Child Abuse Conviction Finalized Over “Bad at Studying” Remark

[Financial News] A homeroom teacher’s conviction for child abuse was finalized, even though an audio file secretly recorded by a parent who placed a recorder in their child’s bag was excluded as evidence. The teacher had repeatedly told a pupil in the classroom, “What are you going to do if you’re that bad at studying?”
According to legal circles on the 11th, the Supreme Court’s Second Division, with Justice Eom Sang-pil presiding, on the 10th of last month upheld the lower court’s ruling ordering Teacher A, an elementary school teacher indicted on charges of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes, to pay a fine of 5 million won and complete 40 hours of a child abuse treatment program.
Teacher A, who had 23 years of teaching experience, was indicted on charges of repeatedly making remarks such as “Study a little. Is it okay to be so bad at studying?”, “What are you going to do if you’re that bad at studying? I’m stressed because of you,” and “This kid? Did they do it on their own? Didn’t they copy it?” to a student who was 9 years old at the time. A worked as a fourth-grade homeroom teacher at an elementary school in Gangseo-gu, Busan, from April 1 to 22, 2024, and made the remarks in a classroom where other students were present.
The victim’s diary said they had been so upset that they went to the bathroom and cried; that they were glad they didn’t have to see the teacher on weekends; that they felt anxious because of the teacher; and that their confidence was gradually disappearing because of the teacher.
From around April 8, 2024, the child’s mother placed a recorder in the child’s bag and recorded conversations in the classroom. She filed a complaint with the school on April 25 that year, and the homeroom teacher was replaced on May 13. The police report was made on May 20. However, the recording was excluded as evidence starting at the first trial. In January 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that a teacher’s remarks during class in a classroom constituted “conversations between other persons that have not been made public,” which the Protection of Communications Secrets Act prohibits from being recorded, and that recordings secretly made by parents could not be used as evidence.
There were two issues: whether, in a case involving an illegally obtained recording, the victimized child’s and mother’s statements and the diary could be used as evidence of guilt; and whether the teacher’s remarks constituted “emotional abuse,” prohibited under Article 17(5) of the Child Welfare Act. A denied making the remarks and any intent to abuse, and argued that the child’s and mother’s statements were also secondary evidence derived from the illegal recording. Secondary evidence is evidence obtained again using illegally collected evidence as a lead. In principle, it cannot be used in court, but an exception is allowed when circumstances show that the connection to the illegal collection has been severed.
In March last year, the Busan District Court’s Western Branch, the court of first instance, found that the remarks had been made based on the statements of the victimized student and the student’s mother, as well as the diary. It found that a homeroom teacher repeatedly telling a particular student in front of young pupils that they were bad at studying posed a significant risk to the child’s mental health and development, and that the child had in fact suffered considerable psychological distress. The court sentenced A to one year in prison, suspended for two years, ordered 160 hours of community service, and imposed a five-year ban on employment at child-related institutions.
In January, the Busan District Court, acting as the second-instance court, also ruled that most of the remarks constituted emotional abuse beyond the bounds of legitimate educational activities or student guidance. It found that the victimized child’s testimony was consistent on the main points and that the diary largely corroborated it. The court also cited a survey of 26 students in the same class, in which some students said the teacher yelled at pupils or belittled, compared, and discriminated against them through words and actions.
However, the second-instance court found the teacher not guilty on that count in the reasoning of its ruling, saying there was insufficient basis to regard as emotional abuse the remark to the effect that the student was “being a nuisance to a friend who is studying” after turning around to borrow an eraser. A reasoned acquittal is when a charge that is treated as part of the same offense as the portion found guilty is deemed not guilty, but the court states this only in the reasoning of its judgment rather than issuing a separate acquittal in the operative order. The second-instance court said there were indications that A had been concerned about improving the student’s academic performance, making it difficult to conclude that A committed the offense with an active intent to abuse. It reduced the sentence to a fine of 5 million won and waived the employment ban.
The Supreme Court also upheld the lower courts’ decisions. The panel said, “There was no error affecting the judgment due to misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence, the admissibility of secondary evidence, hearsay evidence, the admissibility of transcripts of video recordings, or ‘emotional abuse’ as defined in Article 17(5) of the Child Welfare Act.”


[email protected] Kim Dong-gyu Reporter