A special education teacher, referred to as A, who was indicted on charges of emotionally abusing the autistic son of webtoon artist Joo Ho-min, received a not guilty verdict in the appeal.
On the 13th, the 6-2 department of the Suwon District Court's criminal appeal division (Chief Judge Kim Eun-jung) overturned the first trial ruling that had suspended a fine of 2 million won against the elementary school special education teacher A, who was indicted on charges of child abuse, and issued a not guilty verdict.
Earlier, in September 2022, Joo Ho-min filed a complaint against special education teacher A for allegedly abusing his son, who exhibits autistic symptoms. The case became widely known in late July 2023, a year later.
At that time, the first trial court acknowledged the evidential value, considering the exceptional nature of the case, including the fact that Joo Ho-min's child is an autistic individual, while noting that recording conversations between others without their consent constitutes illegal collection. In particular, regarding A's statement, "The habit is very bad. I'm talking about you. Ugh, I hate it. I hate it to death. I hate you!" the court found it to constitute emotional abuse and ruled guilty.
Thus, the first trial court sentenced A to a suspended fine of 2 million won. A suspended sentence postpones the pronouncement of a sentence for a certain period for minor offenses, and after two years from the date of suspension, it effectively nullifies the conviction.
However, A did not accept the first trial ruling. Along with the appeal, a request for constitutional review by the Constitutional Court was also submitted.
In this regard, the second trial's judgment differed. The appeal court stated, "According to the records of this case, it can be seen that the mother of the victim child placed a recorder with the recording function turned on in her child's clothing and recorded the conversation between the defendant and the child that took place in the classroom during class time," and determined, "Such recording files and transcripts constitute 'non-public conversations between others' in violation of the Communication Privacy Protection Act, so they cannot be used as evidence."
While the recording file was admitted as evidence in the first trial, it was not recognized as evidence in the second trial. As the judgments of the original and appeal trials completely diverged, the appeal court overturned the initial ruling and issued a not guilty verdict.
[Photo] OSEN DB
[OSEN]