Hagwon instructor avoids prison again on appeal in child abuse case

A hagwon instructor in her 50s who abused young students at an English-language preschool program has again avoided prison, receiving a suspended sentence on appeal.

The Incheon District Court's Criminal Appeals Division 2-3, presided over by Chief Judge Shin Sun-young, upheld the original sentence Sunday, handing the defendant, identified only as A, eight months in prison suspended for two years on charges of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes.

A was indicted for physically and emotionally abusing four children — including a boy identified as B, who was 3 years old at the time — at an English hagwon in Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, in May 2023.

She was found to have struck a child on the forehead with her palm and pulled another's ear because the children had forgotten to bring their utensil cases or were not eating properly.

A also excluded students from class and made them stand in the hallway for more than 30 minutes, and ate snacks in front of children who were being punished.

B told investigators that he "cried after being hit hard on the forehead" and asked them not to tell his mother, saying it would make her sad.

A had appealed, arguing that some of the victims' statements lacked credibility and that her actions constituted legitimate discipline intended to teach children the rules of group life.

The appeals court rejected that argument, ruling that the lower court had properly assessed the credibility of the children's testimony and that A's conduct "could impede the normal development of the child victims or harm their mental health," making the original guilty verdict justified.

The court also dismissed a cross-appeal by prosecutors, who had sought a guilty finding on emotional abuse charges that the lower court had acquitted.

The first-instance court had acquitted A on some counts, including allegations that she pulled a child's chair back and grabbed and shook the child for not eating.

The appeals court said it had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that those actions "constituted emotional abuse severe enough to impede mental health and development."

The court added that no special change in circumstances warranting a revision of the sentence had arisen since the original ruling, and that the first-instance sentencing did not fall outside the reasonable scope of judicial discretion.