Class transfer decided before scores were assigned
Education official improperly swayed deliberations
Phone records expired, leaving caller unidentified
Board of Audit and Inspection says outside interference cannot be confirmed
A school violence committee that handled a bullying case involving the child of Kim Seung-hee, a former protocol secretary at the presidential office under Yoon Suk Yeol, failed to follow proper deliberation procedures, a Board of Audit and Inspection probe has found. The audit also revealed that the committee's secretary improperly influenced the proceedings by repeatedly voicing opinions on what disciplinary measures should be imposed. However, the board said it could not find objective evidence to support political allegations of outside pressure.
The Board of Audit and Inspection released the findings Tuesday under the title "Audit on Allegations of Reduction and Concealment in the School Violence Case Involving the Child of Former Secretary Kim."
The audit was conducted to determine whether external influence had been brought to bear on the handling of a 2023 school violence incident involving Kim's child, who was a third-grader at the time. The National Assembly requested the audit in December last year, calling for an investigation into the allegations.
The audit found procedural irregularities in the deliberations of the school violence committee under the Seongnam Office of Education.
Under relevant regulations, a school violence committee must first assess basic factors — including the severity and persistence of the violence — and then determine the level of disciplinary action based on that assessment, adjusting the measures through a majority vote of members if necessary.
The committee did not follow that sequence. The board determined that the panel first settled on a "class transfer" for the offending student and then assigned scores for each evaluation category to fit that predetermined conclusion.
The conduct of education official A, who served as the committee's secretary, was also flagged as problematic. During the deliberations, A repeatedly shared not only personal views but also the opinions of outside individuals regarding what level of disciplinary action should be taken against the student. The board characterized this as improper interference with the independent deliberations of committee members.
Separate from those procedural issues, however, the audit was unable to confirm that Kim's side or the presidential office had applied any external pressure on the handling of the case.
The board said it conducted in-person and written interviews with committee members and reviewed related materials including communications records, but could not secure objective evidence of outside pressure.
Investigators also failed to identify the so-called "section chief" that A was reported to have called during the committee meeting. Accounts from those involved were inconsistent, and by the time the investigation was conducted, the retention period for communications records had expired, leaving no data to confirm who had been called.
Ultimately, the board acknowledged that the procedures had been improper but concluded it could not go so far as to determine that outside interference lay behind them.
"A review of similar cases found it difficult to conclude that the measures taken in this case lacked fairness," the board said. "Based on the evidence and statements confirmed, it is difficult to determine whether outside parties intervened in the committee's deliberation and decision-making process."
kwater@heraldcorp.com
