Teacher who photographed college entrance exam question and shared it in group chat loses job

A court has upheld the dismissal of a teacher who photographed a question from a College Scholastic Ability Test mock exam while proctoring it and shared the image in a group chat with colleagues at his school. The court said that had the teacher acknowledged his wrongdoing at the time, dismissal might have been considered excessive — but that he instead committed further misconduct in an attempt to escape accountability.

According to legal sources, the Seoul Administrative Court's 14th Administrative Division, presided over by Judge Lee Sang-deok, ruled against former high school teacher A in June in his lawsuit seeking to overturn his dismissal. The court also ordered A to bear the litigation costs.

According to the facts established by the court, A was assigned as a proctor at a high school in Seoul in September 2023 for a CSAT mock exam. During the Korean history portion of the test, he photographed an entire exam question and posted the image to a group chat that included more than 70 faculty and staff members at his school. He wrote at the time that the founder of a particular school had appeared as a subject in the mock exam.

Seven minutes later, another teacher told him the exam was still in progress and demanded the image be deleted. The school principal then instructed all staff to leave the group chat. An investigation found that the question had not leaked beyond the chat.

Under the guidelines governing the national academic achievement assessment, exam proctors are required to strictly prevent any form of cheating. Opening spare exam booklets before the test is prohibited, and questions and answers may only be distributed after the exam has fully concluded.

Once the incident became public and media coverage followed, the school convened a disciplinary committee. A was found to have sent messages disparaging the principal and other teachers in response. The committee handed down a reprimand in February 2024 — the lightest possible disciplinary measure — but the situation escalated. A continued to send defamatory messages targeting the principal and fellow teachers, prompting a further investigation. He was ultimately dismissed in November 2024. Four months later, an appeals review board reduced the penalty slightly, from dismissal with forfeiture of pension rights to standard dismissal.

A contested the dismissal. In May last year, he filed a lawsuit seeking to have it overturned.

During the trial, A's side argued that the incident could not be considered a leak of exam questions. On the defamatory conduct, his side contended that because the vice principal and others were his superiors, they could not be considered victims of workplace harassment.

The court rejected A's arguments. The first-instance ruling said there was room to consider dismissal excessive had A "humbly accepted his wrongdoing from the outset and remained faithful to his duties as a teacher" — but found that he had instead "committed additional misconduct in an attempt to avoid accountability without acknowledging his wrongdoing."

The court added that A had "drawn numerous teachers and students into this case in the process," and said his inability to continue working at the school was largely of his own making.

According to the facts established by the court, A engaged in a range of misconduct in an effort to downplay the question-sharing incident.

He repeatedly sent messages to the vice principal telling him to "act with conscience and integrity for the sake of your children" and warning him to "be prepared to face legal liability, including defamation charges." He also filed eight complaints and criminal accusations against the principal, vice principal and academic affairs director with the National Human Rights Commission of Korea and the Ministry of Employment and Labor, as well as with investigative authorities.

During the disciplinary proceedings, A was found to have fed false information to the media — claiming the principal and vice principal had excluded legitimate committee members — resulting in inaccurate reports. He also impersonated a parent to call other parents in an attempt to solicit statements favorable to himself, and sent the false reports to students to stir up sentiment against the school.

Taking all of these circumstances together, the court said that while "there is ample room to view A's initial sharing of the question as a mistake or an act of carelessness, there is a fundamental problem with the attitude A displayed during the subsequent disciplinary process."

The court said that "had A humbly accepted his wrongdoing when the grounds for discipline came to light and remained faithful to his duties as a teacher, there would have been room to consider dismissal excessive" — but that "A committed additional misconduct in an attempt to avoid accountability without acknowledging his wrongdoing, and in doing so drew numerous teachers and students into the case." It concluded that A's inability to continue working at the school due to his own misconduct was largely of his own making.

The court also found that after his relationships with the principal, vice principal and academic affairs director broke down, he "filed a barrage of complaints, accusations and criminal referrals for the purpose of harassing them," and that "the severity of the misconduct is significant, given that he engaged in repeated stalking behavior and even contacted the vice principal's spouse."

The court further concluded that A's conduct "damaged the trust relationship to a degree that made it difficult for the school to continue entrusting him with the education of its students," and that "the dismissal cannot be seen as having lost its social acceptability."

The ruling has not yet been finalized. A filed an appeal on June 17, and a second-instance hearing is set to follow.