Hello. This is attorney Lee Kyung-joon of Cheongchul Law Firm.

In recent years, we have seen a marked rise in consultations along the lines of “a teacher scolded a student and was then reported for child abuse.” This point of collision between infringement of teaching authority and child abuse is at once a matter of an individual teacher’s criminal liability and a matter of how the school as a whole conducts student guidance.

So, up to what point is a teacher’s legitimate guidance, and from what point does “emotional abuse” under the Child Welfare Act (아동복지법) begin? On this question, the Supreme Court has once again handed down a ruling that clearly draws the line.

Supreme Court Decision 2024Do6945, decided June 25, 2026 (대법원 2026. 6. 25. 선고 2024도6945 판결; violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), reversed and remanded), squarely addressed whether an elementary school teacher’s in-class remarks and a posting on a parent notice app amounted to emotional abuse. The lower court found the teacher guilty, but the Supreme Court overturned that judgment.

1. Overview of the Case — A Classroom Conflict That Began with a Complaint over a Physical Education Assessment

The defendant, an elementary school teacher, received a complaint from the victim child during a physical education performance assessment that “some of the assessment items had not been carried out.” When the defendant did not accept this, the victim child kept loudly protesting and talking back during the class that followed.

The defendant had the victim child go to the back of the classroom and write a letter of reflection, saying, “Why are you lying? You liar. None of you should become a child who lies like that. I can’t stand the sight of you,” and “Don’t live your life that way.” That same day, on the parent notice app, the defendant posted a message referring to the victim child to the effect that “there is a student who fabricates lies plausibly and in detail, crying and claiming to be wronged, and doing so with a straight face.”

The next day, after being told that the victim child’s father would come to the school for a meeting, the defendant took the victim child to the school research room and said, “Your parents made a fuss back when you were in kindergarten too, didn’t they? No — I’m sure they made a scene.” The prosecution treated the above remarks and the notice-app posting as emotional abuse and indicted the defendant, and the lower court convicted.

2. The Standard for “Emotional Abuse” as Set Out by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court first laid out the definition of the “emotional abuse that harms a child’s mental health and development” prohibited by Article 17, item 5 of the Child Welfare Act (아동복지법 제17조 제5호). This means “an act that hinders — or creates a significant risk of hindering — the normal maintenance and growth of the mental posture or attitude by which a child perceives, thinks about, and judges things; an act of a degree comparable to inflicting bodily harm on a child or to abandoning or neglecting the child.”

As comprehensive factors, the Court set out: (i) the relationship between the actor and the victim child; (ii) the actor’s attitude at the time; (iii) the child’s age, sex, disposition, and developmental state; (iv) the child’s reaction and any change in condition; and (v) the place and timing of the act. It then added (vi) the degree and manner of the act; (vii) the circumstances leading up to it; (viii) its repetition and duration; and (ix) its effect on the normal development of the child’s mental health — all to be judged comprehensively (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5769, decided March 12, 2020 / 대법원 2020. 3. 12. 선고 2017도5769 판결 참조).

3. The Supreme Court’s Reasoning — “Exceeding Discretion” and “Intent to Abuse” Are Separate Questions

Taking together the circumstances of the defendant’s remarks and the situation at the time, the Supreme Court found ample room to view the victim child’s protesting conduct as “class-disrupting conduct that infringed the other students’ right to learn and the homeroom teacher’s teaching authority.” A homeroom teacher holds a certain discretion in guiding students, and, the Court held, the defendant’s remarks did not appear to exceed that discretion.

The Court went on to hold that, although the defendant’s remarks could be assessed as “somewhat inappropriate,” they were made in the course of an educational measure — emphasizing the seriousness of the lying while trying to calm a victim child who could not control their emotions. There was no abusive language and no exercise of physical force against the body.

In conclusion, finding that the “intent” to commit emotional abuse had not been proven to the point of excluding reasonable doubt, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment below. That is, even if a remark appears inappropriate, the intent to commit emotional abuse is not thereby immediately established.

4. The Practical Significance of This Ruling

First, it has become clear that, when judging whether a teacher’s guidance conduct amounts to child abuse, one must look not only at the “resulting remark” but also at “the circumstances on the student’s side that led to that remark.” The extent of the student’s class disruption, their protesting attitude, and any repetition become the starting point of the analysis.

Second, the ruling again confirms that “intent” is required for emotional abuse to be established. Using somewhat strong expressions for an educational purpose, and making remarks with the intent to inflict mental harm on a child, lead to different outcomes as to criminal liability.

Third, the practical criteria for distinguishing guidance that falls within a teacher’s discretion from abuse that plainly exceeds that discretion have been made more concrete. Even where there is a public expression, such as a posting on a parent notice app, the assessment may differ according to its purpose and context.

5. What Teachers and Parents Should Check at the Early Stage of a Case

From the teacher’s side, the first task is to organize “the context of the guidance conduct” in chronological order: (i) when and how the student’s class disruption or inappropriate behavior occurred; (ii) in what situation and in what tone the guidance remarks were made; and (iii) whether there is objective material — such as other students or CCTV — that can confirm these points.

From the parent’s side, “the actual mental impact the child suffered” must be organized objectively: (iv) whether there were changes in the child’s emotions, sleep, eating, or refusal to attend school before and after the remarks; (v) whether there is diagnostic material from child psychiatry or psychological counseling; and (vi) what the repetition and duration were.

For both sides, organizing “the objective facts” takes precedence over emotional reactions at the early stage. Throughout the reporting, investigation, and trial process, those facts remain on the record as they are and become the backbone of the later defense strategy.

6. Conclusion

This 2024Do6945 ruling shows once again that an “inappropriate remark” and “emotional abuse” are by no means the same. It reaffirms the principle that a teacher’s discretion in guidance must be respected and that the intent to abuse must be strictly proven.

For a teacher placed under investigation on suspicion of child abuse, or conversely for a parent asserting that their child has been abused, it is necessary to examine the case precisely from the very outset in light of the standard set by this ruling. We recommend that you consult a criminal-law specialist attorney as early as possible and design your defense strategy together.