Even for disciplinary purposes, the Supreme Court decided that if a 7-year-old child was left alone in an empty classroom for 8 minutes, it was considered child abuse and punished.
The third division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Kim Jae-hyung) announced today (27th) that it has confirmed the court case sentenced to a fine of 3 million won in the appeal of the elementary school teacher A, who was accused of violating the Special Case Act on the punishment of child abuse crimes.
In April 2019, Mr. A was tried on charges of leaving him alone in the next classroom for about 8 minutes because he was a first grader at the time, and he did not listen well.
Mr. A protested that the quarantine measures at the time were not abuse, and that it was a'time-out' discipline in which children were set aside at a certain time and place for a while.
Children called the quarantine place'hell bath', but they argued that it was only a nickname after a fairy tale book, and it was not a real scary space.
However, the first trial sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 3 million won for the quarantine measure as'child abuse'.
The judge judged that Group B was'neglected' in that Mr. A did not bring Group B to the classroom immediately after class.
In fact, it was investigated that Group B was discovered and brought to the classroom by another teacher during the break.
The judiciary said that a child who had only been admitted to school at the time for a month or so may have felt fear in an isolated space, and that there was a risk of additional accidents such as leaving the place because they were left alone.
The fact that Army B was quarantined several times before became the basis for'abuse'.
At the time, quarantine measures were permitted as a method of discipline according to school regulations, but the judge interpreted this as meaning ``in-class quarantine''.
It is true that the name'hell bath' was also named after the actual fairy tale book, but it was judged that it was the object of fear for children.
The grounds were based on the fact that the children perceived the quarantine site as a ``soul space'', and that Group B also said the quarantine site was ``frightening''.
The judge pointed out, "When this case became a problem, the situation after the crime was also very bad, such as when Mr. A urged Army B who told his parents the truth in the classroom, saying,'What is this like, what did you say?'
When A was accused of child abuse, he sent a text message asking 23 parents to write a petition requesting preemption using the personal information kept for academic administration.
In response, the Ministry of Justice judged that it violated the Personal Information Protection Act, saying, "It exceeded the purpose of collecting personal information."
Mr. A claimed innocence, and the prosecutor appealed that the sentence was too light, but the second trial dismissed it.
Mr. A appealed, but the Supreme Court did not accept it.