A special education teacher, referred to as A, accused of emotionally abusing the autistic son of webtoon artist Joo Ho-min, was acquitted in the appellate trial. In response, Joo Ho-min stated, "I respect the court's decision."

On the afternoon of the 13th, the Suwon District Court's 6-2 Division of Criminal Appeals, presided over by Director General Kim Eun-jeong, Kang Hee-gyeong, and Kwak Hyung-seob, overturned the original ruling and declared A not guilty in the appellate sentencing hearing regarding violations of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Crimes of Child Abuse.

On this day, Joo Ho-min, who attended the appellate sentencing hearing with his wife, told reporters when asked about his stance, "I'm very upset, but I respect the court's decision." Joo Ho-min added, "I feel through this ruling how difficult it is to prove when a disabled child suffers (in school). It seems that various institutional improvements are necessary."

In particular, Joo Ho-min noted that any plans for an appeal would be decided by the prosecution.

A's legal representative stated, "The ruling today serves as a warning that if there is a conflict, it should be resolved through dialogue between the school teacher and the parties involved, rather than through actions like secretly recording without any signs of child abuse. If today's trial had resulted in a guilty verdict, teachers nationwide would have to teach children in an environment where they could be secretly recorded. I hope that teachers will now be able to provide a safe and comfortable educational experience."

A was indicted without detention for allegedly emotionally abusing the victimized child with comments such as, "You have a very bad habit," "Oh, I dislike this," "I dislike it so much," and "I also dislike you. I really dislike you," in a customized learning class at an elementary school in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, on Sept. 13, 2022.

The investigation began when Joo Ho-min's side placed a recording device inside his son's outerwear and sent him to school, then reported A to the police based on the recorded contents. In the first trial last year, A was sentenced to a fine of 2 million won, with the ruling suspended.

The appellate court that acquitted A determined that it could not recognize the evidentiary value of the secretly recorded audio file, which became a key issue in this case. The court stated, "Based on the records of this case, it is evident that conversations involving the victimized child were recorded through the recording device in the classroom. The audio file and its transcript can be judged to have recorded a conversation between parties that should not be disclosed under the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. The prosecution's claim that the mother's actions fall under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as justified conduct, and therefore the audio file has evidentiary value, is not applicable when considering Article 4 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, which prohibits using content obtained in violation of prohibiting regulations as evidence."

[OSEN]