Home > National > Social Affairs

Teenager wins lawsuit against education office for being framed as school bully

Published: 14 May. 2025, 12:12

Stock photo of a victim of school violence unrelated to the story [GETTY IMAGES BANK]

A teenager won a suit against the local education office for being wrongly framed as a school bully, after proving that he was in fact the victim.

The Incheon District Court’s Administrative ruled in favor of a 16-year-old student, who filed an administrative suit against the head of the Incheon Seobu Office of Education seeking to overturn a disciplinary decision made by a school violence committee, according to legal sources on Wednesday.

The student, then in his second year of middle school, was assaulted by another student on the morning of March 17, 2023, in front of other classmates on the way to school.

The perpetrator verbally insulted the student and his parents, and later attacked him in the classroom, throwing him to the ground and punching him in the face. The victim received a medical diagnosis of injuries requiring four weeks of treatment.

The school recognized the plaintiff as the victim and initially implemented protective measures, including temporary shelter and psychological counseling.

However, nearly two months later, on May 15, 2023, the perpetrator reported to the school that he had also been a victim of school violence at the hands of the plaintiff, and requested a hearing by the school violence countermeasures committee.

The offender claimed the plaintiff had verbally mocked his parents in front of other students and had struck his throat with a mobile phone on March 17.

He also alleged that the plaintiff taunted him, saying, “Go ahead and hit me. I could use the money.”

Members from the Blue Tree Foundation campaign for school violence awareness in front of the foundation's offices in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on July 24, 2024. [NEWS1]

Following the initial offender’s report, the education office convened the school violence committee and concluded that both students had been perpetrators.

It issued the plaintiff four hours of community service, a ban on contacting or retaliating against the other student and two hours of special education for both the plaintiff and his guardian. The initial perpetrator received a lighter penalty: two hours of community service and the same special education requirements.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the city education office, which only slightly reduced his community service hours but maintained his classification as a perpetrator.

Arguing that his actions were in self-defense and that the committee had accepted false statements from the initial perpetrator and other witnesses, the plaintiff took the matter to court.

The court sided with the plaintiff, determining that the education office had made a serious error in judgment.

“The act of the plaintiff striking the perpetrator with a mobile phone was a passive form of resistance in the face of violence and does not constitute school violence under the School Violence Prevention Act,” the ruling said.

The court added that the perpetrator was physically stronger and had reportedly lifted the plaintiff during the incident, based on witness testimony.

“The committee’s decision contained a fundamental error in assessing the key facts,” the court continued. “The resulting disciplinary action was a clear overreach and abuse of discretion, rendering it unlawful.”

The court also criticized the committee’s reasoning, stating, “The defendant’s behavior did not qualify as school violence, yet the committee misjudged the core facts. Despite the plaintiff being the primary victim, they mislabeled the case as mutual violence and downgraded his level of reflection, assigning inappropriate scores for intent and persistence.”

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
BY JANG GU-SEUL [[email protected]]