A classroom where a single thrown book causes special injury... ‘School violence’ piling up in court

The number of dedicated courts has been doubled... The number of cases reviewed by the school violence committee also increased by 78% in 4 years.
After the unification of the Office of Education, the way for teacher intervention was blocked... Communication between the perpetrator and victim is cut off

Here are A and B, third-year high school students about to enter college. We were in the same class at the beginning of the semester, but we didn't even know each other's phone numbers and never spoke to each other. One day, at the end of recess, a student from another class came in to borrow a textbook. Person A threw the book towards the door to hand it over, but due to lack of strength, the book did not reach the door and fell towards Ms. B, who was sitting in the middle. Mr. A immediately apologized, and Ms. B ignored the incident without notice.

However, a few days later, Mr. A was reported as a perpetrator of school violence. A criminal complaint for special injury followed. Miss B's parents misunderstood that A had intentionally thrown the book at their daughter. Hundreds of pages of material were submitted to the school and investigative agency to the effect that “our daughter has been ostracized and harassed since last year.” The result was acquittal and no action. However, in the meantime, Boy A was unable to go to school for several days, and there was a rumor at school that he was the perpetrator. The money that Group A’s parents spent on attorney fees amounted to tens of millions of won.

Someone may ask, “How can that be school violence?” However, such cases are not uncommon in schools today. Korean society has already reached a stage where every minor conflict and misunderstanding that occurs in the classroom flows through the school violence committee, administrative review, and administrative litigation to the courts. The judiciary also began to move along with the trend.

In the process of dealing with school violence, the gap in parents' economic power is revealed.

Last February, the Seoul Administrative Court doubled the number of courts dedicated to school violence cases from two to four. This measure is in response to a surge in related lawsuits as school violence measures have become mandatory starting from college entrance exams in 2026. As the conclusion of the lawsuit filed against the decision is delayed, the impact on student records and entrance exam schedules increases, so the court has no choice but to speed up the process. In fact, lawsuits related to school violence in Seoul increased 2.6 times in three years, from 51 in 2022 to 134 last year.

This is not a phenomenon unique to Seoul. According to the status of school violence review and appeal procedures obtained exclusively from the Ministry of Education by Sisa Journal reporters on the 10th, the number of cases reviewed by the School Violence Countermeasures Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as the School Violence Committee) increased by 77.8% in four years from 15,653 cases in the 2021 school year to 27,835 cases in the 2024 school year. Every year, 10,000 cases pile up at the school violence committee. This means that the amount of conflict occurring at school flowing into administrative procedures has exceeded the critical point.

As deliberations piled up, the number of complaints increased. During the same period, administrative judgment requests filed by offending students increased from 875 to 1,261, and administrative lawsuits increased from 107 to 241. What is noteworthy is the structure of disobedience. Compared to the victims' claims (10 → 3 cases), the frequency of use of complaints by the perpetrators (107 → 241 cases) is consistently high. In particular, in the 2024 school year, offender students submitted 583 applications for suspension of execution, while victim students submitted only 11 applications, showing a 53-fold gap.

Suspension of execution is a procedure that suspends the effectiveness of school violence committee measures until the merits of the case are judged. If the implementation of the measure is delayed, the timing of entry into the school records will be delayed and the impact on entrance exams will be reduced. Moreover, as some universities began to preemptively reflect school violence records from the 2025 school year in accordance with government guidelines, the tendency for older students, who are more sensitive to entrance exams, to be willing to file lawsuits became clearer. This is why there is a diagnosis in the field that the purpose of disobedience is closer to 'buying time' than 'cancellation of disposition' itself.

Behind the surge in lawsuits is the increase in damage reports themselves. According to the Ministry of Education's '2025 1st School Violence Survey', the number of students who complained of school violence increased every year to 53,600 in 2022, 67,700 in 2024, and 81,500 in 2025. It is an increase of 1.5 times in 3 years.

The changed attitudes of parents these days also play a role in the fact that reports lead directly to court. Even issues that in the past were dismissed as children's pranks now result in immediate reports. Along with the claim that 'I was the only one who suffered', there are also frequent cases where even cases that are close to negligence on both sides are defined as violence. Many analyzes say that overprotection or extraordinary affection for an only child is the basis for this. Shin Hye-seong, a lawyer who specializes in school violence (formerly a Seoul Family Court judge), explained, "In the past, there was an atmosphere where parents of perpetrators apologized, but now it is common to respond by saying, 'You should take responsibility for my mistake, too.'"

As legal responses became standardized, the process of dealing with school violence became a stage where economic disparities were revealed. Parents who can afford to bear the costs of litigation fight to the end, but parents who cannot afford to do so end up giving in even if they are not at fault. A parent of a victim said, "The office of education supported the cost of psychological counseling, which eased the burden, but the cost of the lawsuit was a huge burden. Parents of victims of school violence pooled their money and filed a lawsuit." We have reached a stage where even victims' parents must cover the costs through joint investment to fight within the system.

In particular, when disobeying school violence measures, parents become more impatient than the parties involved. Daewon Kim, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm (formerly a member of the school violence response committee of the Incheon Southern Office of Education) said, “In order to change the outcome of a school violence disposition, you have to prove a significant deviation or abuse of discretion, which is by no means an easy task.” To make matters worse, when a criminal case is combined, the school violence committee is opened late or reopened after seeing the results of the criminal case, which only deepens the pain for parents who do not have the psychological and financial resources.

The more fundamental problem pointed out by legal experts who have seen school violence cases up close goes one step further here. The school violence handling system itself was designed with ‘extreme perpetrators and extreme victims’ in mind. Strong measures such as immediate separation, school suspension, and contact ban are essential to protect the truly harmed students. However, Attorney Shin points out, “Conflicts actually increase as the same measures are uniformly applied to cases that are close to false reports or to very minor cases.”

One incident he defended occurred between sixth-grade female students. The incident in which some students sent an unpleasant note to a friend was recognized as school violence, and during the reporting process, all of the pranks that friends had made by calling each other "idiots" were brought to light. In the end, even students who had nothing to do with the note were reported as perpetrators, and some of them were able to escape the procedure only after being judged as 'not school violence'. Attorney Shin said, "When you were young, even if you got into a fight with your friends, didn't you make up the next day? Nowadays, the moment a parent reports it, separation is applied immediately and you are not even given a chance to apologize."

Where communication is cut off, the gap in perception deepens. Even if the person identified as the perpetrator wants to apologize, there is no way, and the person who reported the case as the victim accumulates resentment without receiving an apology. Lawyer Shin said, "There are many cases where both parents are reasonable people," but "since contact information is not even shared, the other child is increasingly perceived as a bad child during the time of separation."

Teachers' positions in classrooms, the primary site of conflict, have also become smaller. After school violence issues were unified under the jurisdiction of the Office of Education, there was almost no room for teachers to directly intervene. Lawyer Shin said, "Teachers can see who is being wronged," but added, "If they side with the wronged side, it is common for the other parent to come to school and yell at them, so in the end, there are many cases where they don't take anyone's side and just walk away." He observed that in most cases where minor cases go to court, there is a problem with one or both parents of the perpetrator or victim. The burden is passed entirely on to the teacher.

The unification of the Office of Education itself is also a product of trial and error. At one time, individual schools held their own school violence committees. As responsibility was vested in the school principal, there was also a positive aspect of attempting to resolve the issue at the school level. However, as procedures such as committee composition and convening notification were carried out by non-legal experts, procedural defects occurred frequently. Attorney Shin said, "Even though it was a matter that could be recognized as school violence, there have been accumulated cases where decisions were broken in administrative litigation due to procedural flaws," adding, "The school felt the burden of taking the same action again, so a vicious cycle of retreating to lighter measures was created." His diagnosis was that unification was a response to side effects, but as a result, field work and expertise were lost at the same time.

“The school must take center stage and encourage mediation and reconciliation.”

Nevertheless, the common opinion of experts is that schools should hold the key to the problem. It is pointed out that the school's neglect of its role lies behind the fact that the response to school violence has been swayed by the logic of the legal market. Attorney Kim Dae-won pointed out, "The original purpose of the school violence system is to raise the offenders into sound members of society by guiding them and resolving disputes. For this, active intervention by schools is essential, but in reality, schools are ignoring this responsibility due to administrative burden."

In fact, in some schools, when an incident occurs, there is a strong tendency to minimize or conceal the incident or, conversely, mechanically hand it over to the school violence committee without educational guidance. Dry administrative procedures take the place of educational solutions that should have been achieved in the classroom. Attorney Kim called for a responsible role for schools, saying, “Not only the victims but also the perpetrators are ultimately objects of protection that the school must embrace and teach.” He went on to suggest, "Schools should not be a place where documents are simply processed," and "Schools should take the center stage from the beginning of an issue and find educational solutions first, such as encouraging mediation and reconciliation between students and parents."

It is clear why the role of schools is urgent. This is because once violence occurs, no system or law can completely erase the wounds left on a child. There are many cases where victims transfer schools or leave school, and some end up making extreme choices and end their lives. This has nothing to do with the social status or reputation of the family.

A clear example is the story of actor Kwon Oh-joong. He recently spoke on a broadcast about his son, who suffers from a rare disease, being a victim of school violence. He sobbed as he relayed the pain of his son, who had glass stuck in his neck and had to crawl to the bathroom. “Children are young, so it can happen,” he calmly said, but the heart of the father who had to take his bleeding son to the emergency room eventually broke down.

Therefore, the increase in the number of courts dedicated to school violence is more of a reactive response to increasing disputes. The problems experts point out are also at a stage before the dispute reaches court. These are the gap between the ‘extreme school violence’ assumed by the system and the actual conflict, the lack of expertise at the deliberation stage, and the broken communication in the classroom.

I go back to that classroom again. The book thrown at the end of recess would have ended with an apology at school. However, while the system closed off the space for those words to be exchanged, the case finally reached the court after going through administrative trials and administrative litigation. Ultimately, the way to reduce court workload is not to increase the number of judges. It begins with giving back to the school the place where one word can come and go.

MZ parents’ changed ‘method of responding to school violence’… Teachers also ‘white flag’ in lawsuit war

In school settings, there are repeated complaints that the mediation function in the classroom has virtually been paralyzed. A teacher surnamed Kim (female, 35), who has been working in Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do for eight years, said in a phone call with Sisa Journal, "Even if students reconcile, there are many cases where parents refuse to apologize until the end and insist on legal action. These days, when it comes to school violence, teachers often withdraw their hands. There are also cases where teachers take responsibility for intervening incorrectly." In addition to the burden of having to testify as a witness, the number of cases where teachers are the target of raising issues in the process of dealing with school violence is increasing, and the space for mediation in the classroom is becoming increasingly narrow.

In a situation where even teachers have given up their hands, where can parents of victims of school violence turn? The three parents whose children were victims of school violence that Sisa Journal met between April 20 and April 30 had different stories, but they all agreed that "the most realistic measure at this stage is to leave a record in the student records." This means that in a situation where mediation in the classroom does not work, the only institutional mechanism that parents can rely on is the student record.

Parents of Victims: “Leaving a record in the student record is a realistic remedy”

Mr. A, who has children in elementary school, said, "There is a need for punishment not only for the instigators of school violence, but also for all students who participated. Isn't the harm done to the children's hearts something that can be reversed?" He said, "As the investigation began, I found out that my child was dealing with all the perpetrators and the conscienceless school administration alone," and added, "I feel resentful of myself for forcing my child to go to school because he didn't want to go to school."

A similar feeling of helplessness continued from other parents. Mr. B, who has a child in middle school, said, "There was a reason when my child refused to go to school. However, the school's position was different. My child was assaulted and even heard swear words, but the perpetrator only received the first punishment (written apology). Now, I am planning to move for my child." Mr. C, who has a child in high school, also said, "The school's punishment for my child who was assaulted was a written apology. It is an unfair world only for the person who was assaulted." He added, "It is too light a punishment compared to suffering a lifetime of trauma and the family falling apart together."

In order to hear both sides' positions, the reporters also met Mr. D, the parent of a student identified as the perpetrator of school violence. Mr. D claimed, “The student who claimed to be a victim and my child were originally close friends,” and “But at some point, he joined forces with other students and suddenly began to accuse my child of being the perpetrator.”

He said, "They reported it to a broadcasting company without confirming the facts, and are only making one-sided claims against the media. They are even threatening to file a civil lawsuit. This only appears to be an intention to completely ruin the child's life, rather than an explanation through the school violence committee, which is a legitimate procedure."

In fact, it was confirmed that Mr. D's children and the victims had a long-term bond as they were seniors and juniors in the athletic department. Although the specific facts will be determined through future legal battles, Mr. D's position is that much of what is currently known has been maliciously exaggerated. However, in a situation where he has already been stigmatized as a perpetrator, Mr. D's child has virtually no place to stand in the school. Mr. D claimed that he had the impression that the school and the school violence committee were already treating his children as criminals and moving forward with a conclusion even before the investigation was completed.

The problem is that while the two sides' claims run parallel like this, the emotional rift between the parents deepens to an irreparable level even before the true nature of the incident is revealed. This acts as a decisive obstacle to reconciliation between the parties. The same goes for people complaining of frustration in the educational field. The teacher surnamed Kim, mentioned earlier, confessed, "From the teacher's perspective, there is no way I would feel comfortable because both the perpetrator and the victim are students," but he also added, "If you support one side's position, you can get caught up in the theory of responsibility, so it is realistically impossible to actively mediate."

Reporter Taejun Lee (jun@sisajournal.com)

[View full article]
A classroom where a single thrown book causes special injury... ‘School violence’ piles up in court (Shortcut)