Attorney Park Eun-seon (9th bar exam) of Reason Law Office, a former teacher, made this point about the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against Violence in Schools, which from this year requires schools to enter school violence measures in the student record and mandates reflecting them in college admissions.
The current Juvenile Act does not leave juvenile court protective dispositions as criminal records so they do not affect one's future personal records, but school violence committee measures remain in the student record and can restrict college admission and career choices.
In connection with a recent case, Attorney Park filed a request with the court for a constitutional review, arguing that the system in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against Violence in Schools, which requires recording school violence measures in the student record and mandatorily reflecting them in college admissions, is potentially unconstitutional. Park's view is that this is dual punishment and excessive punishment of students who committed school violence, and it runs counter to the purpose of the Juvenile Act.
Park worked as a high school social studies teacher for more than 10 years beginning in 2002. While on parental leave, Park's spouse, a civil servant, was transferred to Jeju Island, prompting a move; Park then entered law school and, while juggling parenting and studies, became an attorney in 2020. Park said an interest in the law grew from teaching the "Law and Society" course at school, which led to law school.
School violence cases have recently emerged as a major "meal ticket" in the legal industry. Parents, afraid that disputes between students will be recognized as school violence and block their children's futures, are rushing to seek out attorneys. Handling such school violence cases, Park published a book, "Is this school violence?," capturing the concerns and experiences encountered.
We met Attorney Park, who holds the identities of teacher, parent, and attorney, on the 20th at the office of Reason Law Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. The following is a Q&A.
—We hear lawsuits related to school violence have been increasing recently.
"Administrative appeals and lawsuits related to school violence, which numbered 1,550 in 2021, rose to 2,851 in 2023, an 84% increase. Meanwhile, over the same period, the rate of principals resolving cases in-house fell from 67.7% to 61.6%. It means conflicts that could have been resolved inside schools are moving into the courts."
—What is the cause?
"There are cases where parents say, 'Our child would never do that,' and contest the school violence countermeasures committee (school violence committee) decision, and there are also cases of genuine unfairness. Some children, wrongly labeled as perpetrators contrary to the facts, even attempt extreme choices. From a parent's perspective, they have no choice but to hire an attorney and head to court to protect their child."
—Do you expect even more lawsuits ahead?
"From this year, school violence measures are entered in the student record and must be reflected in college admissions. This means even minor sanctions can affect college admission, competition eligibility for student-athletes, and careers in the arts. From a parent's standpoint, anxiety that an obstacle could remain in their child's future will drive them to court. The fear that their child's college admission could be blocked is pushing them toward litigation, an extreme response."
—Is that why you requested a constitutional review referral?
"Holding someone accountable for wrongdoing and then again imposing uniform disadvantages in admissions on a student who has already taken responsibility are different issues. Our Constitution provides that no one shall be punished repeatedly or excessively for the same offense. This is the principle against double punishment and excessive punishment. I am not saying we should abolish the School Violence Prevention Act or the school violence committee system itself. The problem is the system that records school violence measures in the student record and mandates reflecting them in college admissions."
—Why is the system the government introduced to eliminate school violence a problem?
"Beyond the issue of double punishment, there is also an equity problem. Korea's Juvenile Act stipulates that protective dispositions shall not have any effect on a juvenile's future personal records. That is why juvenile court protective dispositions do not remain as criminal records. But school violence sanction records can remain in the student record like a criminal record and restrict a child's future.
Under the current system, a student who received a juvenile court protective disposition for a drug crime does not have that history recorded in the student record. By contrast, a student who received community service from the school violence committee for verbal abuse can have that recorded in the student record and face disadvantages in college admissions."
—In 2016 the Constitutional Court found it "constitutional" to record school violence sanctions in the student record.
"At the time, the court focused on the fact that reflecting the student record in admissions was not mandatory, so the disadvantage was potential. But from this year, it is mandatory in all types of admissions at all universities. The premise of the prior constitutionality ruling has fundamentally changed."
—Isn't it true the perpetrating student did something wrong?
"The fact of wrongdoing and what punishment is just are different questions. In real life, school violence does not always draw a clear line between perpetrator and victim, good and evil, like the drama "True Education." Many cases stem from immature quarrels between friends, momentary emotions, cross-complaints, or misunderstandings."
—Shouldn't the victim's position also be considered?
"I am not saying we should remove the perpetrating student's responsibility. We should clearly hold them accountable for wrongdoing, but we should not take away opportunities for restoration and a fresh start from a student who has taken responsibility. It is also hard to say the current system necessarily helps the victim's recovery. The perpetrating student, blocked in admissions, continues litigation, and the victim must repeatedly recall the incident and testify in court."
—You will likely face criticism as "an attorney siding with perpetrators."
"It is true I hesitated. Many people may see this case only as 'a lawsuit to remove disadvantages for perpetrating students.' Even though it is a pro bono case, I received a lot of criticism that I am already making money on the side of perpetrators. But after handling hundreds of school violence cases, I saw how the current system actually hinders children's reflection and recovery. I was also a teacher in the past. Before the case itself, I first think, 'How can this child get through this process to grow?' Holding a student who did wrong accountable is necessary, but not to the point of taking away their future—that is what I consider education."
—In what direction should the system change?
"We must deal firmly with serious and ongoing violence, retaliation, and group bullying. Matters that are minor, one-off, and have a high likelihood of relationship repair should be resolved by the principal in-house. Policy direction should focus less on the severity of punishment and more on victim recovery and responsible change by the perpetrating student. If things continue as they are, it will only fuel the juridification of the school setting."