Teacher Who Hit Elementary Student's Buttocks with Mop Receives Reduced Sentence in Second Trial

First Trial Suspended Prison Sentence → Appeal Trial Fine
"There Are Circumstances to Consider Regarding the Motive and Details of the Crime"

A teacher who hit an elementary school student with a cleaning mop handle for allegedly submitting false English homework received a reduced sentence in the second trial and will be able to continue teaching.

According to a Yonhap News report on the 17th, the Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Shim Hyun-geun) overturned the original sentence of one year in prison with a two-year probation given to teacher A (30), who was charged with violating the Child Welfare Act, and instead sentenced him to a fine of 2 million won. The court also revoked the three-year employment restriction order related to child-related institutions imposed on A in the original trial, maintaining only the order to attend 40 hours of child abuse treatment lectures.

A was prosecuted for hitting B (12), a student at an elementary school in Wonju, Gangwon Province, 11 times on the buttocks with a cleaning mop on June 2 last year, causing bruises that required two weeks of treatment, on the grounds that B had submitted false English homework. In the first trial, A claimed that his actions were a legitimate form of disciplining the student, but the court did not accept this.

Although A was charged with violating the Child Welfare Act at the time, the court treated the case as a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes (aggravated punishment for child abuse by workers at child welfare facilities) and gave him a suspended prison sentence. Prior to this, A had reached a settlement of 33 million won with the victim's family.

A appealed the first trial verdict, arguing that the sentence was too harsh. The appellate court reduced the sentence, taking into account that A admitted to the crime during the appeal, and that as the homeroom teacher, he had sincerely guided and educated the victim child, who had somewhat poor study habits and behavior before the incident, in an effort to improve him.

The appellate court first pointed out, "The Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act absolutely prohibits corporal punishment that causes physical pain to students using tools, so A's guilt is not light." The court then explained the reasons for the sentence reduction, stating, "However, on the day of the incident, A repeatedly scolded B verbally for being negligent with his assignments, and when B resisted and said he would accept corporal punishment, A impulsively administered the punishment, which is a mitigating circumstance regarding the motive and circumstances of the crime. Also, the victim's family has petitioned for leniency for the defendant, and the defendant appears to have worked diligently as a teacher for about five years until the time of the incident."

A, who was at risk of losing his teaching license after receiving a prison sentence or higher in the first trial, will now be able to continue his teaching career following the appellate court's ruling.

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