A teacher who privately contacted an examinee who took the SAT test at the exam center he supervised saying that he has a crush on him as a person of the opposite sex filed an administrative lawsuit stating that the disciplinary action of three months of suspension was unfair, but lost in the first trial.
According to the legal community today (28th), the first administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Ahn Jong-hwa) recently ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Teacher A against the Seoul Superintendent of Education, saying, "Cancel the suspension of suspension."
After 10 days after the exam, Mr. A asked Mr. B, a test-taker who entered the CSAT on November 15, 2018, 'I am A who supervised the CSAT', 'I like Mr. B', 'How about having a conversation', etc. KakaoTalk message sent.
The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education imposed a three-month suspension in March last year, stating that Mr. A's behavior was to gain the favor of women by using the authority of a state institution, and was also handed over to a criminal trial, violating his duty to maintain dignity as a public official.
In response, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit, claiming that “I learned Mr. B’s cell phone number not through the examination supervisor, but through Mr. B ordering coffee and accumulating points at a cafe before that.” I paid.
At the trial, Mr. A said, "Before becoming a teacher for the entrance exam supervisor, it was the beginning of what I did as an ordinary man to convey a pure affinity for women." "In the past, the media reported that the victim was a high school student, but the actual victim is in their 30s." I did.
However, the court ruled in favor of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, saying, "The reason for disciplinary action is that Mr. A violated his duty to maintain confidentiality and dignity as an education official by using personal information of Mr. B, which he found out in the course of supervising the entrance exam." gave
The court judged, "It is difficult to believe the claim as it is," saying, "There is inconsistency in the statement made by Mr. A at the investigative agency regarding how he got to know Mr. B or his cell phone number."
He also pointed out, "It is a serious violation of the public's trust that Mr. A, who came to know the personal information of the examinee while performing the national duties of supervising the entrance exam, used it for his own personal purposes."
On the other hand, in this case, Mr. A was charged with using personal information from Mr. B for purposes other than the one for which he received it (violation of the Personal Information Protection Act) and was acquitted in the first trial, but was overturned in the appeals court and sentenced to 4 months in prison and 1 probation He was sentenced to years and appealed.