Court Rules "Dismissal of High School Teacher for Skinship with Student 19 Years Younger Is Justified"... Reverses First Trial Verdict

"Even If Prosecutors Decide Not to Prosecute, Violation of Duty to Maintain Dignity as a Teacher Recognized"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] A court ruling has upheld the dismissal of a teacher who engaged in a romantic relationship and physical contact with a student 19 years younger than him at the high school where he worked.

Although the teacher avoided criminal punishment due to the prosecutor's decision not to indict, the court recognized that the teacher seriously violated the duty to maintain dignity as an educator, constituting sufficient grounds for disciplinary action.

According to the court on the 18th, the Daejeon High Court Administrative Division 1 (Presiding Judge Moon Gwang-seop) overturned the lower court's ruling that had ordered the cancellation of the dismissal of Mr. A (42), who worked as a teacher at a high school in Busan, and ruled against the plaintiff in the appeal case seeking to overturn the decision of the Teacher Appeal Review Committee.

The court stated, "It must be recognized that the series of sexual contact acts toward the student damaged the dignity as an educator," and added, "The disciplinary grounds cannot be denied simply because of the prosecutor's decision not to indict."

It further explained, "It is difficult to view the dismissal in this case as an abuse of discretion due to a significant loss of validity in terms of social norms."

Mr. A was booked in 2018 on charges of sexually harassing a student 19 years his junior at the school where he worked as a teacher in the fall of 2015. However, the prosecution decided not to indict, citing insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. A forcibly committed sexual harassment against the student's will.

On the other hand, the school foundation's teacher disciplinary committee dismissed him in the same year.

The grounds for discipline were that "he seriously damaged the dignity as an educator by committing such acts against a subject of sexual protection while neglecting his duty to protect and guide students."

In response, Mr. A claimed, "There was no sexual harassment; we were in a romantic relationship at the time and engaged in a sexual relationship consensually," and filed an appeal with the Teacher Appeal Review Committee, but it was rejected.

Subsequently, Mr. A filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the decision of the Teacher Appeal Review Committee.

In October of last year, the first trial court ruled that the dismissal of Mr. A was unjust.

The ruling considered that the prosecution had issued a non-indictment based on the victim student's testimony and that there is a difference in the degree of misconduct between acts subject to criminal punishment and those that are not, as well as the fact that physical contact occurred during the process of their romantic relationship developing.

Since the first and second trial courts reached different conclusions, the Supreme Court is expected to deliver the final verdict on the legitimacy of the dismissal.

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