Breaking into women's bathroom → Unfair judgment of dismissal of male teacher for female self-portrait, why?

A ruling has been made that the dismissal of a male teacher who broke into the women's bathroom and took a picture of himself disguised as a woman was unfair.

Because she applied the disciplinary standard incorrectly.

The 1st Administrative Department of the Gwangju District Court (Chief Judge Park Hyeon) announced on the 14th that it had won the plaintiff's judgment in the case of teacher A's dismissal against the Gwangju Superintendent of Education.

During the dispatch of education training in 2020, Mr. A went into the women's bathroom at a university three times and took a picture of himself wearing a women's uniform and disguised as a woman.

In February of last year, when A was found posting pictures of herself as a woman in an online community, she received a suspended prosecution from the prosecution on charges of 'violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes (invading places used for sexual purposes)'.

He was also dismissed from office in April of the same year for violating Article 63 (Obligation to Maintain Dignity) of the National Civil Service Act.

However, Mr. A was dissatisfied with the request and filed an administrative lawsuit when it was rejected.

Person A argued, "There is no reason for disciplinary action because it was not for the purpose of satisfying sexual desire because I went into a women's restroom without anyone to simply take a picture of myself dressed as a woman."

"The disciplinary committee applied the standards incorrectly, saying that it is not sexual assault (rejection to dismissal), but other gender-related misconduct (expulsion to reprimand) among violations of the duty to maintain dignity under the rules regarding disciplinary action for educational public officials."

Enlarging an image

The court did not accept Mr. A's argument that there was no reason for disciplinary action, but judged that the application of the standards of the disciplinary committee of the education office was wrong.

Violation of the duty to maintain dignity was not 'sexual assault' but 'other sexual assault', and pointed out that the school district's disciplinary decision standard was incorrectly applied.

The court said, "The decision to dismiss by the disciplinary committee of the education office by applying the disciplinary regulations related to sexual violence among the rules related to decency is a decision that has lost its validity. "He judged.