Video's spread fueled rumors at school, prompting victim to seek psychiatric treatment
Education office escalated punishment to forced transfer after victim appealed
Offending student's side argued transfer would severely restrict his right to education
Court sided with student, ruling transfer was excessive given victim had already moved schools
School violence lawyers say ruling reflects intent of prevention law
A court has ruled that forcing a middle school boy to transfer to another school — as punishment for sharing a sex video of a female classmate without her consent — was excessive and must be overturned. The court found that because the victim had already transferred schools, separating the two students was no longer necessary, and it also took into account that the parties had reached a settlement.
According to legal sources, the Incheon District Court's Administrative Division 2, presided over by Judge Song Jong-seon, ruled in favor of the offending student, identified only as A, on July 24 in a lawsuit he filed against the education office's administrative appeals committee seeking to cancel the forced-transfer order.
According to facts established by the court, A had sexual relations with the victim in around January last year. The encounter was filmed with her consent. A then shared the video without permission with three friends, sending it to one of them via a messaging app. The video was subsequently redistributed to a wider audience, and rumors about the sexual encounter spread throughout the school both students attended.
The victim reported the incident, triggering a school violence deliberation committee hearing. The committee imposed a 10-day suspension and five hours of mandatory education on A in June last year. The victim then filed an administrative appeal seeking harsher punishment, which was accepted. In December last year, the education office's administrative appeals committee escalated the disciplinary measure to a forced transfer.
The committee said A's actions had caused the video to be distributed to multiple students and characterized the case as "a very serious sex crime." It added that the victim was receiving psychiatric treatment and that, given the nature of the incident, rumors would be difficult to fully suppress. It also noted that it could not confirm whether the video had been completely deleted or whether further distribution was possible.
A's side then filed a lawsuit in court in January, arguing the forced transfer was unlawful as an abuse and excess of discretionary authority, and seeking its cancellation.
During the trial, A's lawyers argued that the transfer would significantly restrict his right to education and that, since the victim had already transferred schools, there was no possibility of further harm. They also noted that A had already served a 10-day suspension and said he deeply regretted his actions.
Court cancels forced transfer, citing victim's prior move
![A court building. [Herald Business DB]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/08/28/news-p.v1.20260825.ba1ac6217b7843a8b5f892a1b458a968_P1.jpg)
The court accepted A's arguments and overturned the forced-transfer order.
The panel acknowledged that A's actions "created a risk of the victim's image being digitally replicated and spread" and that "the victim appeared to have suffered significant psychological distress, as many students recognized her from the video."
Nevertheless, the court concluded that "the disadvantage to A appears disproportionately large compared to the public interest goals of protecting the victim and rehabilitating the offending student," and that the order must be canceled as an abuse and excess of discretionary authority.
In explaining its reasoning, the court said a transfer order "is a heavy measure that strips A of the achievements and friendships he has built at his current school."
It added that carrying out the transfer would not only force A to adapt to a new educational environment in a short period of time, but could also prevent him from forming new relationships and healthy connections due to the stigma of being a student who transferred because of school violence. The court said forced transfers should be used only as an exceptional measure when necessary to resolve a dispute.
The first-instance court said that since the victim had already transferred, forcing A to transfer for the purpose of separation could not be considered strictly necessary, and that there appeared to be no ongoing risk of additional harm to the victim.
The court also noted that A had shown remorse by writing a letter of reflection and an apology to the victim, and that his parents had expressed a commitment to doing their best to guide him into becoming a healthy member of society.
In addition, the court found that A had completed a special lecture on sexual rights education as part of efforts to prevent a recurrence, and that he had no prior record of notable misconduct.
The ruling was finalized on Aug. 15, after the education office chose not to appeal.
Separately from the school violence disciplinary proceedings, A received a juvenile protection disposition under the Juvenile Act from a family court in connection with the same incident, including orders to attend an educational facility and perform community service.
Lawyers: ruling reflects intent of school violence prevention law
Lawyers specializing in school violence cases said the ruling appeared to reflect the intent of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools.
Noh Yun-ho, an attorney at law firm Sawol and the first lawyer in South Korea registered as a school violence specialist by the Korean Bar Association, said that given the principle that forced transfers are meant to be imposed when physical separation of the parties is deemed necessary, "there is an aspect in which the transfer runs counter to the principle of minimum infringement." He added that "imposing a heavy punishment simply because the act was serious leaves only a punitive purpose and runs counter to the goals of the school violence prevention law."
Park Ji-young, an attorney at law firm Hwinmoe, said the ruling was one she considered entirely plausible based on her experience with school violence committees. "School violence cases, by their nature, require consideration of specific circumstances beyond legal principles alone, to determine what measures are most appropriate for both the offender and the victim," she said. She added that while the outcome might have been different had the victim not transferred, "it appears the court judged that the significance of the transfer order had diminished given that the victim had already moved schools."
Kim Young-mi, an attorney at law firm Sungin and co-author of a book on school violence, said it appeared that once rumors had spread through the school, it would have been difficult for the victim to continue attending. "It seems the transfer order was canceled because the victim had already transferred and a settlement had been reached, among other factors," she said.
Park Seong-uk, an attorney at law firm Sun, said the ruling appeared to give particular weight to the fact that A, as a middle school student, is subject to compulsory education, and that a settlement had been reached with the victim. "Since guaranteeing the right to education for A, who is subject to constitutionally mandated compulsory education, is also an obligation of the state, I believe the court applied a strict standard in assessing that," he said.
notstrong@heraldcorp.com
