The scope of disciplinary authority

If a teacher misleads a student who did not take a bath while he or she loses his or her desire to do so to the extent that it is impossible to confirm whether a student, who is the victim, was able to do so, the teacher is an illegal act of violence that deviates from the scope of disciplinary authority even if he or she intended to teach a student for educational purposes.

Article 20 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79No7647 delivered on February 26, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the evidence produced in the judgment, the court below acknowledged the fact that the victim of the second-year student in high school who was employed by the defendant as a life guidance principal teacher was able to see that the victim of the second-year student in high school, who was employed as a living guidance principal teacher, was able to see the victim's face heads on both sides of the above victim's face each time and was able to see the victim's face each once, and caused an injury to the shock and both sides of the above victim's face that require 10 days prior to the transfer of her face, and therefore, the court below was just in the process of the above fact-finding, and there is no error in the rules of evidence

2. The court below decided that the above act of the defendant was the act of assaulting and causing bodily injury, and the act of the defendant was the act of admonishing for educational purposes, and therefore, the defendant's argument that the act constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act was the act of a political party. The victim who did not take a bath was not a student subject to disciplinary action, but did not take a bath. However, the victim was not a student subject to disciplinary action as stated in the above decision. Thus, even if the victim was tried to teach students for educational purposes, it is judged that the above act constitutes an illegal act of violence deviating from the scope of disciplinary authority, and it cannot be found that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the argument of the theory of lawsuit is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)