Supreme Court: "Pushing Incident Between First-Graders Is Not School Violence"

"School Violence Determination Requires Consideration of Severity and Circumstances"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a first-grade elementary school student causes injury by pushing a classmate, the case may not necessarily constitute school violence, depending on the severity of the act, the circumstances under which it occurred, as well as the student's age and ability to make judgments.

According to the legal community on September 20, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeob) recently upheld the prior court's decision, confirming the ruling against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Student A’s representatives for the cancellation of a resolution made by the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education Administrative Appeal Committee.

Student B, who was in the same class as A, was in the first grade at an elementary school in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province in 2023. The School Violence Countermeasure Review Committee of the Yongin Office of Education determined on February 1, 2024, that B's act of pushing A off the stage in a multi-purpose room during an after-school badminton lesson on March 22, 2023, constituted school violence. The Review Committee requested a written apology from B in accordance with Article 17, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against School Violence, and the superintendent issued the corresponding measure the following day.

B subsequently filed an administrative appeal requesting the cancellation of this action. On June 19, 2024, the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education Administrative Appeal Committee ruled that this incident was difficult to classify as school violence, and thus cancelled the demand for a written apology. A's representatives responded by filing a lawsuit to overturn this decision.

The court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It deemed it unlawful to categorically refuse to recognize a clear act of assault as school violence, solely because the perpetrator is young or the incident is deemed minor, and thus declare that legal action is unnecessary or excessive.

The second instance court reversed the previous decision, ruling against the plaintiff. The court stated that the circumstances and context of the incident, together with the severity of the act, must be carefully considered. It found that B, who at the time was only seven years old, had not engaged in conduct serious enough to warrant disciplinary action under the law or to require regulation as school violence.

The Supreme Court also found no error in the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court panel noted that, as emphasized in the second instance, determining whether an act constitutes school violence should include not just a literal interpretation, but a comprehensive consideration of its severity, the circumstances surrounding the event, subsequent developments, and the need to protect the victim and guide or educate the perpetrator.

The Supreme Court further ruled that classifying all acts involving physical or psychological harm as school violence could result in the unjust infringement of the perpetrator's human rights or other legal entitlements.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.