Webtoon artist Joo Ho-min has expressed his position regarding the ongoing controversy surrounding the trial as he returns to broadcasting. He explained the misunderstandings and factual details related to the second trial ruling, emphasizing, "I hope you will think together with accurate information."
On the 10th, Joo Ho-min announced his return by posting a video on his YouTube channel, then wrote on the bulletin board, "In the first trial, the special education teacher was found guilty of child abuse, while the second trial resulted in a not guilty verdict. Many people seem to think that the court ruled it as 'a legitimate educational activity' since the not guilty verdict was reached in the second trial."
He continued, "Thus, many sarcastic comments were made, such as, 'Congratulations. Your son wasn't abused after all.' However, that is not true. The second trial ruling did not assess whether the teacher's remarks constituted abuse. This is because the evidence of those remarks could not be used due to the Communication Privacy Protection Act. In simple terms, the court regarded it as 'illegally obtained evidence' and issued a not guilty verdict without reviewing the content at all," he explained.
In September 2022, Joo Ho-min filed a complaint against special education teacher A for allegedly abusing his son, who has autism. The first trial court recognized emotional abuse regarding the statement, "Your habits are really bad. This is about you. Ugh, I hate it. I hate it to death. I hate you!" finding it guilty. However, the court issued a suspended sentence with a fine of 2 million won for A.
However, the second trial court ruled that the recorded file constituted 'illegal recording' and could not be used as evidence, thereby issuing a not guilty verdict. In response, the prosecution stated, "Unilateral verbal abuse does not fall under communication privacy," and has appealed to the Supreme Court, with a final decision pending.
Joo Ho-min noted, "I believe this Supreme Court ruling is truly important. It is not merely a matter concerning our child's case; it can serve as a benchmark for how children and socially vulnerable individuals who find it difficult to voice their concerns will be protected in the future. I intend to continue correcting any distorted or misunderstood aspects during this process."
Below is the full statement from Joo Ho-min.
As I resume broadcasting, I would like to briefly discuss the recent trial. In the case against the special education teacher for child abuse, the first trial found him guilty while the second trial resulted in a not guilty verdict. Many people, upon seeing the not guilty ruling of the second trial, seem to think the court judged that 'the teacher's actions were not abuse, but rather legitimate educational activities.' Many sarcastic comments like, "Congratulations. Your son wasn't abused after all" were also made. However, that is not true. The second trial ruling did not actually assess whether the teacher's remarks constituted abuse. This is because the evidence for those remarks could not be used due to the Communication Privacy Protection Act. Simply put, the court issued a not guilty verdict without reviewing the content at all, viewing it as 'illegally obtained evidence.' Yet, some claim it is recognized as a legitimate educational activity, and there have been cases where articles were written in that manner. That is a clear distortion. (The ruling is public, so I hope you will read it.) The reason the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court is directly related to that aspect. The prosecution asserts, "The recording was made to protect the child, and the teacher's remarks are unilateral verbal abuse that does not fall under communication privacy, therefore that recording should be admissible as evidence." They argue that the second trial ruling mechanically excluded the admissibility of evidence, which is a violation of the law. Therefore, this matter will be reassessed by the Supreme Court. There are many people who cannot accurately convey their situations, such as individuals with developmental disabilities and the elderly in nursing homes. How can we detect the abuses they suffer? Even if we do find them, if they are not recognized as evidence in court, won't those abuses remain unpunished and be buried? For this reason, I believe this Supreme Court ruling is truly significant. It is not merely a matter concerning our child's case, but it could serve as a benchmark for how children and socially vulnerable individuals who find it difficult to voice their concerns will be protected in the future. I am sharing this to encourage you to have an accurate understanding of the facts and to think together. Thank you for reading this lengthy text.
[OSEN]