There are many sarcastic comments about Joo Ho-min's acquittal of an autism abuse special teacher, but it's not true (Full Story)
Jun 11, 2025
|
Joo Ho-min posted a lengthy post when he resumed YouTube broadcasts on the 10th. "Many people seem to have seen the acquittal of the second trial and thought that the court judged that the teacher's behavior was a legitimate educational activity, not abuse. So 'Congratulations. There were also many sarcastic comments, saying, 'Your son was not abused. But that is not true.'
The second trial decision did not determine whether the teacher's remarks were abuse or not at all. This is because the evidence of the remarks itself was not used as evidence because of the Communications Secret Protection Act. The court found him not guilty without even reviewing the contents, believing that it was illegally collected evidence. "How can we find the abuse inflicted on those who cannot accurately convey their situation?" Even if it is found, if it is not recognized as evidence in court, the abuse will eventually be buried with impunity."
Also "This Supreme Court judgment is very important. Can it serve as a standard for how children and socially disadvantaged people who have difficulty speaking out on their own can be protected??Doors," he stressed.
Joo Ho-min said on September 13, 2022, that special teacher A told his son, who was 9 years old at the time, that his habit was very bad 'Oh, I hate it. He sued for emotional abuse by making remarks such as 'I hate you so much'.
A was indicted on charges of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes and violating the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act. The first trial court suspended the sentence of 2 million won against A in February last year. However, the second trial court reversed the original ruling on the 13th and acquitted him. The reason was that Joo Ho-min and his wife secretly put a recorder in their son's coat and recorded A's remarks was that they could not recognize their effectiveness as evidence because it was illegal.
Next, Joo Ho's full text.
As we resume the broadcast this time, we will briefly talk about the last trial.
He was found guilty in the first trial and acquitted in the second trial of child abuse charges by special teachers.
It seems that many people saw the acquittal of the second trial and thought that the court judged that the teacher's behavior was a legitimate educational activity, not abuse. So "Congratulations. Your son wasn't abusedThere were a lot of sarcastic comments saying ."
But that's not true. The second trial ruling did not judge at all whether the teacher's remarks were abuse or not. Because the evidence itself of the remarks was not used as evidence because of the Communications Secret Protection Act. Simply put, the court found it not guilty without even reviewing the contents, seeing it as `illegally collected evidence.'
But some people say it as if it was recognized as a legitimate educational activity, and some articles were written as such. That's a clear distortion. (Read the verdict because it's open.) That's why the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court this time.
The prosecution recorded it to protect the child, and the teacher's remarks are one-sided verbal abuse and are not subject to the protection of communication secrets. So the recording should be available as evidence." The second trial ruling, which mechanically excludes the ability to testify, is a violation of the law.
So the Supreme Court will judge this again. There are many people who cannot accurately convey their situation. People with developmental disabilities and elderly people in nursing homes. So how can we find the abuse that is being inflicted on these people? Even if we find it, if it's not recognized as evidence in court, wouldn't the abuse end up being buried without punishment?
So I think this Supreme Court judgment is very important. It's not just a matter of our child's case, but because it can be a standard for how children and socially disadvantaged people who have difficulty speaking out on their own can be protected in the future. In this process, we continue to correct distorted or misunderstood parts. The reason I told you this is because I want you to know more accurate facts and think about it together.
Thank you for reading the long article.
silk781220@sportschosun.com
