[2] The requirements for guiding students of elementary and middle school teachers to constitute a justifiable act under the law and the case where such instruction cannot be viewed as a justifiable act

[3] The case holding that the act of guiding female middle school teachers in light of the situation, motive, means, method, etc. at the time of guidance is an act of guidance which loses objective validity under social norms, and thus cannot be viewed as a justifiable act

[2] According to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and subordinate statutes, a teacher may take disciplinary action when it is deemed necessary for education upon the delegation of the principal of the school, and otherwise, he/she may take other means. In other cases, he/she may take physical punishment, which is a method of physical pain only when it is inevitable for education. In other words, even where a teacher provides guidance by means other than disciplinary action against a student, it is necessary for education as well as for the case of disciplinary action. In particular, it is allowed only when an education is inevitable for a student, such as physical and mental pain, and a speech that provides guidance to a student, and thus, it is difficult to see that the act of violence and bathing was committed with the purpose of correcting the student's wrong speech and behavior, and it was impossible to correct other educational means, and it is difficult to see that the act of guiding or insulting the student was a justifiable act by means of social norms, and thus, it is hard to see that the student was an act of guiding or insulting the student's body without any specific reason, and thus, it is hard to see that the student's physical guidance or insulting.

[3] The case holding that the instruction of female middle school teachers cannot be viewed as a justifiable act on the ground that it does not meet the objective validity under social norms in light of the situation, motive, means, and method at the time

Compared with the evidence of the first instance court as cited by the lower court, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by violating the rules of evidence, on the ground that the charges of this case were proven guilty, on the ground that the Defendant, a female middle school teacher and Taekwondo guide teacher, assaulted Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2 at a place open to the outside of the classroom, and insultd the victim Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 1, and that the charges of this case were convicted.

The court below does not accept this part of the arguments to the effect that the defendant did not have committed any act like the facts charged, but erred in the determination of evidence and the fact-finding.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

In the case of disciplinary action against students or educational guidance activities against students pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes, the illegality of such acts is dismissed, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by prescribing that acts which do not violate Acts and subordinate statutes, acts which are conducted by Acts and subordinate statutes, or other social norms, shall not be punishable.

However, an act that does not violate social rules refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or its hinterlands or social norms. Thus, whether an act does not violate social rules should be determined on an individual basis under specific circumstances where it is intended and reasonably considered under specific circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2389, Apr. 25, 200).

On the other hand, the Framework Act on Education (Act No. 5437) was enacted since March 1, 1998 in lieu of the former Education Act, which had a central law on education, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Act No. 5438) was enacted in accordance with Article 9 of that Act, and there was a change in the perception of teachers and students and in the human and material educational environment during that period, and accordingly there was a change in the contents of the regulations on the disciplinary action and guidance of students. Accordingly, such a change in the regulations on the disciplinary action and guidance of students in elementary and secondary schools has to be reflected in the legal regulations on the discipline and guidance of students

Article 18 (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides that "the head of a school may discipline or instruct students by other means, as determined by Acts and subordinate statutes and school regulations, if necessary for education," and Article 20 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides that "A teacher shall educate students as determined by Acts and subordinate statutes," and Article 31 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "the head of a school may take disciplinary action against students as referred to in any of the following subparagraphs against the students if he/she deems it necessary for education pursuant to the main sentence of Article 18 (1) of the Act:

According to the regulations, teachers can take disciplinary action when they are deemed necessary for education with the delegation of the principal, and if they do not take disciplinary action, they may give guidance by other means. In the guidance, it can be called a body punishment, which is a method of physical pain only when it is inevitable for education, and in other cases, only the method of discipline and decoration is permitted.

Therefore, even in the case where a teacher instructs a student in a way other than discipline, education needs to be conducted, as well as in the case of disciplinary action, and in particular, physical and mental pain to a student is allowed only for education purposes. Thus, the act of assault and bathing to a student was conducted for the purpose of correcting a student's wrong speech and behavior, and it was impossible for other educational means to correct it, and it can be viewed as a justifiable act in accordance with the law only when there was an objective validity that can be acceptable from the method and degree of such behavior.

Therefore, without notifying the student of the educational meaning, such as physical punishment, discipline, etc., because it is not an act of guidance from the purpose of correction, whether it is a guidance act derived from the character of a guidance teacher or appraisal, or whether it is an act of guiding the student openly to the extent that he/she is a situation in which he/she can be directed and corrected individually at a place without any other person, even though he/she is an act of guiding the student by means of discipline or discipline, or by using the student's body or body, it is difficult to view that the student's act of guiding the student's physical injury is objectively reasonable in light of social norms, unless there are special circumstances.

In this case, applying the above legal principles to the facts of this case, the defendant was in a situation where he could have used a method of giving a warning as an individual guide in compliance with the requirements of compliance at the time of the student instruction as seen above, and other special circumstances could not be recognized even if he could not be recognized, the decision of the court below based on the same premise is acceptable as it is reasonable to accept the judgment of the court below. The defendant immediately found the defendant's behavior outside the classrooms where he was committed by the victim non-indicted 1 due to his own hand or drinking, and when the defendant was reported by the victim, the victim non-indicted 1 was slurfed with the victim's second hand, and the defendant was slurf who was reported by the defendant, and caused excessive humiliation to the victims who were able to be able to feel insulting.

This part of the grounds of appeal that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations related to the disciplinary action and exercise of guidance rights under statutes or by misapprehending relevant legal principles is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)