Controversy Over Gwangju Seo-gu Councilor A's Remarks Defending Abused Local Childcare Center

Court Recognizes Abuse Charges at B Child Center... B Center 'Facility Closure' Ordered Last Year

Assemblyman A Criticizes, "There is the Principle of Presumption of Innocence in the First Trial, This Is Excessive"

Seo-gu States, "If Abuse I

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Yoon Jamin] Councilor A of Seo-gu Council in Gwangju Metropolitan City has become the center of controversy for making remarks defending a local children's center that received administrative sanctions for child abuse allegations.

According to Seo-gu and Seo-gu Council in Gwangju Metropolitan City on the 2nd, the B Local Children's Center received an administrative order to close the facility in August last year.

In June 2018, a parent of a child reported child abuse, and the Child Protection Agency judged it as 'emotional abuse.' Two years later, in July last year, the Gwangju District Court issued a ruling recognizing the child abuse allegations.

The court sentenced the director of B Children's Center to 10 months in prison with a 2-year probation for violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes and the Child Welfare Act, and restricted employment at child and youth-related institutions for 5 years.

In response, the director of B Children's Center immediately appealed, denying the child abuse allegations.

Regarding this, Councilor A recently pointed out during the 293rd Seo-gu Council extraordinary session's district administration inquiry that "the administrative closure of the facility is an excessive measure since the case is under appeal and the charges have not been confirmed."

He also claimed that when the initial abuse report was made, Gwangju City and Seo-gu conducted several on-site investigations, but B Children's Center refused the investigations themselves, and the 'order to improve refusal of investigation' issued was procedurally flawed because no hearing was conducted.

However, fact-checking revealed that Seo-gu's administrative procedures were lawful, contrary to Councilor A's claims.

According to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Social Welfare Services Act, a hearing must be held before taking actions such as revoking social worker qualifications, canceling establishment permits, or closing facilities. However, Seo-gu's position is that the administrative order to improve refusal of investigation by B Children's Center does not fall under these categories, so a hearing was not required.

Furthermore, the criticism regarding the final facility closure violating the presumption of innocence principle was also confirmed to have no issues with administrative procedures.

When child abuse acts are confirmed, administrative sanctions can be imposed according to the Enforcement Decree of the Child Welfare Act.

The confirmation of child abuse acts does not mean a finalized sentence for a 'child abuse-related crime,' but refers to cases where the local government head, child protection agency's case judgment results, and, if necessary, investigation contents from investigative agencies are comprehensively reviewed and confirmed.

Therefore, even if the director of B Children's Center appealed the court's ruling, the administrative closure order issued by the autonomous district can be considered a lawful procedure.

A legal expert also expressed the opinion that since there was a serious violation of 'child abuse' under the Child Welfare Act, the administrative agency can impose administrative sanctions regardless of the appeal or court ruling, and this does not violate the constitutional or criminal procedure law principle of presumption of innocence.

Councilor A is now facing criticism for defending the children's center accused of child abuse by raising issues of administrative procedure violations as if they were facts in a public setting without listening to the unilateral claims of complainants and the voices of the executive branch.

In response, the Seo-gu public officials' union also urged Councilor A to stop targeting public employee workers.

The public officials' union criticized, "We could not help but be appalled by the absurd remarks invoking the presumption of innocence principle regarding a local children's center closed through administrative procedures following the results notification from the Child Protection Agency and court rulings," and added, "By consistently relying only on the center's unilateral claims, they are turning legitimate administrative actions into retaliatory and petty administration, causing frustration and self-reproach among the responsible public officials."

Regarding this, Councilor A argued, "The center consistently denies child abuse, and since the appeal is ongoing, isn't the administrative closure, which is tantamount to a death sentence, an administrative action that violates the 'presumption of innocence' principle?" and "There is sufficient room to view this as retaliatory administration."

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