School Violence Perpetrator University | School Violence Perpetrator's Disciplinary Action Revoked, Preventing Disadvantage in University Admissions

The client maintained a romantic relationship with the victimized student for about one year.

The two first became acquainted through social media and subsequently began dating, and the relationship was open to the extent that even the client's guardian was aware of it.

During the period of dating, there had been physical contact between the client and the victimized student as a form of affection, but the client believed that all of it had taken place by mutual consent.

Afterward, the two broke up by mutual agreement, and while each was continuing with their own life, time passed and they came to attend the same high school again.

However, the victimized student suddenly claimed that the physical contact during the past dating period had been an act against the student's will, and that after the breakup the client had spread the fact of their sexual relationship to surrounding students, and reported this to the school.

The school received the matter as a school violence case and convened the School Violence Countermeasures Committee to conduct an investigation.

As a result, it was determined that the client had engaged in physical contact against the victimized student's will and had spread related content through social media and other means after the breakup, and the client received a Level 8 transfer disposition under school violence measures.

The client, who as a school violence perpetrator was at risk of suffering disadvantage in university admissions, therefore requested assistance from a school violence attorney.

1) Specifically Organizing the Point That There Was No Coercion

The client acknowledged that there had been physical contact during the dating period, but consistently stated that he had never acted forcibly despite the victimized student's refusal.

However, the School Violence Committee interpreted the client's words as if he had “denied the contact itself” and judged the matter unfavorably to him.

The school violence attorney reorganized and submitted the actual intent of the client's statement, clearly explaining that “not having done it forcibly” and “there having been no contact at all” carry different meanings.

The attorney also pointed out that the witness confirmation statement was not based on directly observed content but on a story heard from the victimized student, and argued that it was therefore difficult to regard it as evidence of forcible conduct.

2) Response to the Determination That a One-Time Mention Constituted ‘Continuous Dissemination’

The school violence attorney acknowledged that the client had mentioned content about the victimized student to a friend on one occasion in the form of seeking advice about a personal concern.

However, the attorney organized and submitted, together with supporting materials, the point that the message in question was limited to a single instance and that there was no purpose of spreading rumors.

Through this, the attorney emphasized that it was difficult to regard the matter as “continuous school violence” and established the argument that the Level 8 transfer disposition was excessive.

3) Highlighting the Willingness to Reflect and the Excessiveness of the Transfer Disposition

The client expressed an intention to apologize from the early stage of the case and acknowledged responsibility for his inappropriate remarks.

However, the situation was such that the part where he corrected his statement in order to set certain facts straight had been misunderstood as a lack of reflection.

The school violence attorney explained that correcting a statement is merely an exercise of the right of defense, and argued a violation of the principle of proportionality by emphasizing the effect that the transfer disposition would have on the client's studies and future.

The school violence attorney systematically contested the misapprehension of facts, the problems in the scoring, and the excessiveness of the transfer disposition.

As a result, the court revoked the Level 8 transfer disposition that had been imposed on the client.

Accordingly, the client did not suffer disadvantage in university admissions due to a school violence perpetrator's record of measures, and was able to continue studying at the existing school and carry on school life stably.

Levels 1 through 3 are deleted upon graduation, and a one-time deferral of recording is possible.

Levels 4 and 5 are retained for 2 years after graduation, and Levels 6 and 7 for 4 years after graduation, and they may be deleted through a review immediately before graduation, but the victim's consent is required.

Level 8 is retained for 4 years after graduation, and Level 9 is preserved permanently.

In particular, Levels 8 and 9 are not deleted during the college admissions period, so disadvantages may follow.

From the 2026 academic year, school violence records are mandatorily reflected in college admissions and, depending on the university, may result in point deductions or disqualification, and from the 2028 academic year they are applied as a point-deduction factor in all admission types, so caution is needed.