Supreme Court Confirms Guilt of 30s Married Female Teacher for 11 Sexual Acts with 17-Year-Old Student

Sentenced to 1 Year 6 Months Imprisonment with 3 Years Probation Confirmed
Victim Student Reversed Police Statement but Deemed Not Credible

A married female teacher in her 30s, who first approached a male high school student at the school where she worked as a contract teacher and then engaged in multiple inappropriate sexual relations with him, has been sentenced to a suspended prison term.

The teacher argued that since the sexual relations were consensual with the student, it could not be considered 'sexual child abuse,' but this claim was not accepted.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

On the 29th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Seo Kyunghwan) upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing A (female, 31 at the time of the case), who was indicted on charges of child abuse under the Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes (Child Abuse Punishment Act) as a worker at a child welfare facility, to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 3-year suspension. The court also ordered her to attend 40 hours of child abuse recidivism prevention lectures and imposed a 5-year employment restriction at child-related institutions, youth-related institutions, and disability-related institutions.

The court stated, "There is no error in dismissing A's appeal, as the lower court did not fail to conduct necessary hearings, did not violate the rules of logic and experience, did not exceed the limits of free evaluation of evidence, nor misinterpret the legal principles regarding 'sexual abuse acts' under Article 17(2) of the former Child Welfare Act."

A, who worked as a contract teacher at a high school in Daegu from March to July 2022, was tried on charges of having sexual intercourse or engaging in similar sexual acts a total of 11 times with B (male, 17 at the time), a second-year high school student, from mid-May to June 22, 2022.

This case came to light after A's husband, who noticed her affair, filed a complaint through the National Ombudsman and disclosed KakaoTalk conversations on online communities.

A's husband reportedly became suspicious of her affair after receiving a KakaoTalk message from A, who had been unreachable past midnight, stating she was admitted to a hospital emergency room. Upon rushing to the hospital, he was told by a doctor that she was diagnosed with an 'ovarian cyst rupture.' Subsequently, he secured evidence including black box footage from A's car, audio recordings, and CCTV footage from a motel recorded by the car's navigation system, and reported the case.

Article 17(2) of the Child Welfare Act prohibits "acts that cause children to engage in obscene acts or mediate such acts, or sexual abuse acts such as sexual harassment targeting children," and Article 71 (Penalties) stipulates that violators shall be punished by "imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to 100 million won." Under the Child Welfare Act, a 'child' is defined as a person under 18 years of age.

Meanwhile, Article 10(2)(2) of the Child Abuse Punishment Act designates principals and teachers of elementary and secondary schools as mandatory reporters of child abuse crimes, and Article 7 of the same law (Aggravated Punishment for Workers at Child Welfare Facilities, etc.) stipulates that if a mandatory reporter commits a child abuse crime against a child under their protection, the punishment may be increased up to half of the prescribed sentence.

The prosecution charged A under the Child Abuse Punishment Act, considering her actions as sexual abuse of a protected child by a mandatory reporter subject to aggravated punishment provisions.

In court, A's side admitted all factual matters stated in the indictment. However, A and her lawyer argued that since B was fully capable of exercising his sexual self-determination rights at the time of their sexual relations, A did not commit sexual abuse nor infringe upon B's sexual self-determination rights.

However, the first trial court rejected this, stating, "It is difficult to see that the victim had the sexual values and judgment ability to properly exercise sexual self-determination at the time of the incident, and the defendant took advantage of the victim's inability to fully exercise sexual self-determination to engage in sexual relations as described in the indictment. Such conduct constitutes sexual abuse prohibited under the Child Welfare Act."

The Supreme Court previously ruled in a 2020 plenary session decision that "Children and adolescents are in the process of forming sexual values and completing sexual health, so sexual infringement or exploitation of children and adolescents can have serious and lasting negative effects on their pursuit of mental and physical health related to sexuality and the formation and development of autonomous personality. Therefore, even if children and adolescents appear to consent or make sexual decisions outwardly, if such behavior results from deception or distorted trust relationships, it is difficult to regard it as the full exercise of their sexual self-determination rights."

Although B's testimony was reversed during the investigation stage, the court found it difficult to trust the changed testimony.

In the first police investigation on July 4, 2022, B testified that ▲ A first approached him through SNS by sending a birthday greeting direct message, suggested meeting for coffee, and met outside, indicating A initiated contact; ▲ during SNS conversations, A proposed sexual intercourse first by saying "let's sleep," which B initially refused but A kept insisting; ▲ on May 14, 2022, A came to pick him up by car and forcibly took him to a hotel despite his repeated refusals; ▲ B felt that if he said he wanted to go home, A would get angry; ▲ A took off her clothes and asked him to wear a condom, and B felt scared that refusal would anger her.

At that time, B also testified that "At first, I was scared during the sexual intercourse, but after doing it once and A continuously treating me well, I gradually developed feelings for A, kept contacting her, and continued sexual relations."

The court judged, "The victim's testimony is credible as its main content is specific, logical, consistent with experience, contains no contradictions, and there is no motive or reason to make false statements unfavorable to the defendant."

However, in the second police investigation on July 12, 2022, B completely reversed his testimony.

At that time, B testified that on May 7, 2022, he was the one who first proposed sexual intercourse in A's car, and that he led the sexual relations weekly thereafter.

But the court found it difficult to accept this reversed testimony as is.

The court based its judgment on ▲ B's detailed and credible initial police testimony about the victimization ▲ despite reversing who initiated sexual relations, B consistently testified that mutual affection developed and meetings and sexual relations continued ▲ it is hard to find a motive for B to make statements unfavorable to the defendant during the first investigation given their mutual affection ▲ B explained the reversal by saying he was scared and made a mistake during the sudden police questioning ▲ the unclear circumstances and reasons for the reversal ▲ and KakaoTalk messages on the defendant's phone suggesting B reversed his testimony at his father's urging.

According to evidence secured by the police, A and B's father began contacting each other after the first police investigation and continued communication even after the second investigation. Text messages sent by A to acquaintances included "The child's father contacted me and said he will have him testify again." Also, when A sent messages about consultations with her lawyer regarding B's testimony to B's father, he replied, "The victim should testify clearly that it was a consensual relationship during the re-testimony. I will make sure to describe that the victim started it because she liked it, to help the investigator recognize that she was mature enough to exercise sexual self-determination. I understand what you mean."

On the morning of July 9, 2022, after the first police investigation, it was revealed that A met B in person to coordinate their statements for the second investigation.

Regarding A's claim that her actions should not be considered 'sexual abuse' of a child, the court stated, "Considering the series of events leading to sexual intercourse, it can be sufficiently seen that the defendant was aware that the victim could not fully exercise sexual self-determination and deliberately exploited the victim's psychological vulnerability to engage in sexual relations."

It added, "This infringes on the victim's passive sexual self-determination rights, and the sexual acts as described in the lower court's ruling violate sexual morality and clearly pose a risk of significantly hindering the victim's healthy sexual value formation and complete and harmonious personality development."

A appealed the guilty verdict in the first trial, but the second trial court upheld the same judgment.

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court's judgment.

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