Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Teacher discipline as emotional abuse of a student under the former Child Welfare Act
Supreme Court, Sept. 12, 2024, 2020Do12920 (judgment)
Case name: 아동학대범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(아동복지시설종사자등의아동학대가중처벌)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May conduct by a school teacher done for purposes of discipline or guidance still amount to 'emotional abuse' prohibited by Article 17(v) of the former Child Welfare Act where it reaches the level of mental violence or cruelty harming the child student's mental health or welfare, impeding normal mental development, or creating a risk of such a result, and by what criteria is conduct exempt from wrongdoing as not contrary to social norms?
Holding
Yes. Even conduct done for discipline or guidance is emotional abuse under Article 17(v) of the former Child Welfare Act where, as mental violence or cruelty, it reaches the level of harming the child student's mental health or welfare, impeding normal mental development, or creating a risk of such a result, unless the teacher followed the purport of the statutes and school rules by staying within what the elementary and secondary education laws and the school rules allow and observing their conditions and procedures. The conduct may still be exempt from wrongdoing where it is not contrary to social norms, judged on a comprehensive weighing of whether it served educational necessity rather than ill will toward the student, respected the student's basic rights and mental and physical sensitivity, stayed within a reasonable range given the repetition and duration, was done in urgent circumstances preventing compliance with the statutes and school rules, and reflected the student's age, disposition, health and mental development.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
학교의 교사가 훈육 또는 지도의 목적으로 한 행위이더라도 정신적 폭력이나 가혹행위로서 아동인 학생의 정신건강 또는 복지를 해치거나 정신건강의 정상적 발달을 저해할 정도 혹은 그러한 결과를 초래할 위험을 발생시킬 정도에 이른다면, 초·중등교육법령과 학칙이 허용하는 범위 내에서 그 요건과 절차를 준수하는 등으로 법령과 학칙의 취지를 따른 것이 아닌 이상, 구 아동복지법(2021. 12. 21. 법률 제18619호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제5호에서 금지하는 ‘정서적 학대행위’에 해당한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where an act by a teacher of a school was done for the purpose of discipline or guidance, if it constitutes mental violence or cruel treatment to the extent of harming, or creating a risk of harming, the mental health or welfare of a child student or impeding the normal development of the student's mental health, the act must be regarded as falling under the 'emotional abuse' prohibited by Article 17, subparagraph 5 of the former Child Welfare Act (as in force before its amendment by Act No. 18619 on December 21, 2021), unless, by observing its requirements and procedures within the scope permitted by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its subordinate statutes and the school rules, the act followed the purport of the statutes and the school rules.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
그 밖에 학생의 연령, 성향, 건강상태, 정신적 발달상태 등이 종합적으로 고려되어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In addition, the student's age, disposition, state of health, state of mental development, and the like must be considered comprehensively.
Factors
- 교육상의 필요, 교육활동 보장, 학교 내 질서유지 등을 위한 행위였는지
- 학생의 기본적 인권과 정신적·신체적 감수성을 존중·보호하는 범위 내에서 이루어졌는지
- 동일 또는 유사한 행위의 반복성이나 지속시간 등에 비추어 교육의 필요성이 인정되는 합리적인 범위 내에서 이루어졌다고 평가되는지
- 법령과 학칙의 취지를 준수하지 못할 긴급한 사정이 있었는지
- 그 밖에 학생의 연령, 성향, 건강상태, 정신적 발달상태 등이
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the act was one for the necessity of education, the guarantee of educational activities, the maintenance of order within the school, or the like
• Whether the act was carried out within the scope of respecting and protecting the student's fundamental human rights and mental and physical sensitivity
• Whether, in light of the repetition or duration of the same or similar acts, the act is evaluated as having been carried out within a reasonable scope in which the necessity of education is recognized
• Whether there was an urgent circumstance that prevented compliance with the purport of the statutes and the school rules
• and the student's age, disposition, state of health, state of mental development, and the like
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 3. 12. 선고 2017도5769 판결(공2020상, 794)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5769, decided March 12, 2020 (Gong 2020 Sang, 794)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2020. 3. 12. 선고 2017도5769 판결(공2020상, 794)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How long, and how often, must the same or similar conduct be repeated before it falls outside the reasonable range in which educational necessity is recognised?
A later Supreme Court decision applying these factors to a different set of facts would require this entry to be read again. So would a change to Article 17(v) or Article 71(1)(ii) of the Child Welfare Act, since the decision applied the version in force before the amendment by Act No. 18619 of 21 December 2021.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How long, and how often, must the same or similar conduct be repeated before it falls outside the reasonable range in which educational necessity is recognised?” vs Independent “How much weight should educational urgency carry when disciplinary conduct substantially infringes a student's rights or mental well-being?”
The primary reading asks how much repetition or duration removes conduct from the reasonable range, while the independent reading asks how much weight educational urgency should carry against substantial infringement.
학교의 교사가 훈육 또는 지도의 목적으로 한 행위이더라도 정신적 폭력이나 가혹행위로서 아동인 학생의 정신건강 또는 복지를 해치거나 정신건강의 정상적 발달을 저해할 정도 혹은 그러한 결과를 초래할 위험을 발생시킬 정도에 이른다면, 초·중등교육법령과 학칙이 허용하는 범위 내에서 그 요건과 절차를 준수하는 등으로 법령과 학칙의 취지를 따른 것이 아닌 이상, 구 아동복지법(2021. 12. 21. 법률 제18619호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제5호에서 금지하는 ‘정서적 학대행위’에 해당한다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daegu District Court, in its judgment of 28 August 2020 (2020No1183), convicted the defendant, for the reasons stated in that judgment, on the charge under the Act on Special Cases, etc. of Punishment for Child Abuse Crimes, aggravated punishment for a person working at a child welfare facility, treating the teacher's conduct toward the child student as emotional abuse under Article 17(v) of the former Child Welfare Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the reasons below against the correct legal principles and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had not violated the rules of logic and experience, had not exceeded the limits of free evaluation, and had not misread the rule on emotional abuse in Article 17(v) of the former Child Welfare Act or the law on a lawful act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. The defendant's sentence was lighter than ten years, so the claim of excessive sentencing could not be a ground of appeal under Article 383(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Conduct within the range the elementary and secondary education laws and the school rules allow, where the teacher observes their conditions and procedures and so follows their purport.
- Conduct that does not reach the level of harming the student's mental health or welfare, impeding normal mental development, or creating a risk of such a result.
- Conduct exempt from wrongdoing as not contrary to social norms, found on the comprehensive weighing the Court set out, including urgent circumstances preventing compliance with the statutes and school rules.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, gather the school rules and the elementary and secondary education provisions the teacher was acting under, and test the conduct against each of the factors the Court listed, including repetition, duration, and the student's age and mental development. Keep the two questions apart: the emotional abuse element under Article 17(v) of the former Child Welfare Act, and the defence of a lawful act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
From the official text
Points at issue
학교 교사가 훈육 또는 지도 목적으로 한 행위라도 정신적 폭력이나 가혹행위로서 아동인 학생의 정신건강 또는 복지를 해치거나 정신건강의 정상적 발달을 저해할 정도 혹은 그러한 결과를 초래할 위험을 발생시킬 정도에 이른 경우, 구 아동복지법 제17조 제5호에서 금지하는 ‘정서적 학대행위’에 해당하는지 여부(한정 적극) / 교사의 위와 같은 행위가 사회상규에 위배되지 아니하는 경우로서 위법성이 조각되는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
Whether an act by a school teacher for the purpose of discipline or guidance falls under the 'emotional abuse' prohibited by Article 17, subparagraph 5 of the former Child Welfare Act, if it constitutes mental violence or cruel treatment to the extent of harming, or creating a risk of harming, the mental health or welfare of a child student or impeding the normal development of the student's mental health (affirmative with limitation) / The criteria for determining whether the teacher's acts described above do not violate generally accepted social norms, thereby excluding unlawfulness
Summary of the holding
학교의 교사가 훈육 또는 지도의 목적으로 한 행위이더라도 정신적 폭력이나 가혹행위로서 아동인 학생의 정신건강 또는 복지를 해치거나 정신건강의 정상적 발달을 저해할 정도 혹은 그러한 결과를 초래할 위험을 발생시킬 정도에 이른다면, 초·중등교육법령과 학칙이 허용하는 범위 내에서 그 요건과 절차를 준수하는 등으로 법령과 학칙의 취지를 따른 것이 아닌 이상, 구 아동복지법(2021. 12. 21. 법률 제18619호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제5호에서 금지하는 ‘정서적 학대행위’에 해당한다고 보아야 한다. 한편 교사의 위와 같은 행위도 사회상규에 위배되지 아니하는 경우에는 위법성이 조각될 수 있으나, 이에 해당하는지를 판단함에 있어서는 교사의 학생에 대한 악의적·부정적 태도에서 비롯된 것이 아니라 교육상의 필요, 교육활동 보장, 학교 내 질서유지 등을 위한 행위였는지, 학생의 기본적 인권과 정신적·신체적 감수성을 존중·보호하는 범위 내에서 이루어졌는지, 동일 또는 유사한 행위의 반복성이나 지속시간 등에 비추어 교육의 필요성이 인정되는 합리적인 범위 내에서 이루어졌다고 평가되는지, 법령과 학칙의 취지를 준수하지 못할 긴급한 사정이 있었는지, 그 밖에 학생의 연령, 성향, 건강상태, 정신적 발달상태 등이 종합적으로 고려되어야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
구 아동복지법(2021. 12. 21. 법률 제18619호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제5호, 제71조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제20조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger