Ulsan School Violence Attorney | Client Subject to a Disciplinary Action for School Violence Prevails in a Revocation Lawsuit With the Attorney's Assistance

The client and A were students at the same school, and one day they happened to take the same bus home together.

Both being hungry, the two headed to a convenience store together right after getting off the bus.

Each selected the items they were going to buy, and A, who headed to the checkout counter first, suddenly seemed to remember an additional item that A needed to buy, and headed back to the shelves, leaving A's mobile phone on the checkout counter.

A convenience store employee who saw this told A to “take the mobile phone,” but A did not hear this.

At the time, A was holding food in both hands, so the client picked up the mobile phone on A's behalf.

Afterward, the client told A again to “take the mobile phone,” but because the convenience store was noisy at the time, A did not hear the client's words.

In that way, the two each finished paying and returned home.

A few hours later, A informed the client through social media that A had lost the mobile phone. The client, who had been worried about A, only then realized that the client had mistakenly taken A's mobile phone.

At the time, after finishing paying, the client had unconsciously placed the mobile phone together with the items into the bag, and returned home without being aware of it.

The client informed A of this fact, and said that the client would return the mobile phone the next day.

However, the next day A filed a criminal complaint against the client on a charge of theft, and also reported the client as a perpetrator of school violence.

Referred to the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee, the client continued to assert the client's innocence, but ultimately had to receive measures including community service and the completion of special education.

Unable to accept this, the client resolved to file a lawsuit against the Office of Education to revoke the school violence disciplinary action.

Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools
Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of the terms used in this Act are as follows.
1. The term “school violence” means an act that causes physical, mental, or property damage to a student, occurring inside or outside the school, through bodily injury, assault, confinement, intimidation, kidnapping or inducement, defamation or insult, extortion, coercion or forced errands, sexual violence, bullying, cyberbullying, and the like.

Article 3 (Duty of Care in Interpretation and Application)

In interpreting and applying this Act, care shall be taken to ensure that the rights of the people are not unduly infringed.

The client did not attempt to steal A's mobile phone.

if they had had the intent to steal A's mobile phone, the client would have turned off the power after obtaining the mobile phone at the convenience store, so that A could not locate it again.

However, the client did not even know that A's mobile phone was in the client's bag, and therefore did not even touch A's mobile phone.

In addition, after realizing that the client had mistakenly taken the mobile phone, the client immediately expressed the intention to return it.

This was conduct contrary to the reactions typically shown by thieves.

The Ulsan school violence attorney, based on these circumstances, emphasized that the client had no intent to steal.

The Office of Education, which received A's school violence report, held a meeting of the deliberation committee.

At this meeting, the committee members determined that on-campus bullying was established, on the ground that the police had made a ‘referral decision’ regarding this theft case.

However, this was a decision made on a mistaken premise.

It is true that the police initially issued a ‘referral decision’ in the client's case. However, the prosecutor who took over the case ordered the police to conduct supplementary investigation.

The reason was that digital forensics should be conducted on A's mobile phone to examine in detail whether the client had actually used A's mobile phone.

Such digital forensics was something the client had requested from the police investigation stage, but it had not been carried out due to A's objection.

However, with the prosecution's supplementary investigation order, an examination of A's mobile phone was ultimately conducted, and the conclusion was that there were no traces of operation whatsoever.

Accordingly, the police again issued a ‘no suspicion of crime disposition’ regarding the client.

However, the Office of Education decided on the disciplinary action looking only at the referral decision made at the outset, and this could only be regarded as highly unfair.

The Ulsan school violence attorney, referring to the unfairness of this decision process, emphasized that the disciplinary action should be revoked.

Through this judgment, the court stated that whether a certain act occurring during ordinary school life constitutes ‘school violence’ as referred to in the School Violence Prevention Act must be determined by carefully examining its background and circumstances, the degree of the act, and the like.”

The court further emphasized that, because conflicts and disputes large and small can readily arise among students living their school lives, the concept of ‘school violence’ should not be expansively interpreted so as to produce an excessive number of perpetrators.

School violence, in particular, has recently become a significant social issue.

In the event of a disciplinary action, the related records remain for a long time, so this matter must always be viewed with a cautious attitude.

Daeryun Law Firm, to which the Ulsan school violence attorney belongs, has a team of attorneys with extensive related experience who assist clients.

If you have been identified as a perpetrator of school violence and are concerned about it, please reach out to Daeryun Law Firm.