With the recent release of the second season of Netflix's drama 'The Glory', it has been attracting a lot of attention. It quickly became the No. 1 content on Netflix, and when added to this the PD's past school bombing controversy, it is producing a number of issues.

But is this really possible in real life? Of course, you can't do this with an eye for an eye or a tooth, and the answer is to punish the perpetrator and rescue the victim within the legal framework. However, if you look closely at the scene, there are many situations that are difficult to understand. Today, we will look at real cases involving mothers of victims of school violence.

Enlarge the image

I told my 8-year-old son's friend, "You report!" ... Not guilty of child abuse

First, let's go to Incheon. A mother has been brought to trial after visiting a friend of her 8-year-old son who she suspected was a perpetrator of school violence, yelling at him. The incident occurred at the back gate of an elementary school in Incheon in 2021. The mother, who was waiting for her son's friend at the door, shouted at Party A. "You're making fun of my son with your hands, but I'm keeping an eye on him," he said, warning him, "If you do it one more time, I'll report you for bullying."

At that time, Group A was following a taekwondo teacher to the academy with her friends, and the mother had already reported Group A to the Incheon City Education Support Agency for school violence after hearing from her son that "(a friend) calls her a pig" four months before the incident.

The mother was eventually charged with child abuse under the Child Welfare Act in December of the same year. Punting and yelling at Party A in front of other friends constitutes emotional abuse. The prosecutor's office filed a summary indictment with a fine of 12,30 won, but the mother claimed that she was unfair and requested a formal trial in April last year.

And the verdict of this trial was recently handed down. The result was innocence. The Incheon District Court found that the conduct was inappropriate at the time, but could not be considered an act of emotional abuse. Regarding the reasons for the ruling, the court explained, "The defendant appears to have done so with the idea that he should prevent further harm while he was aware that his child had already been subjected to school violence from Soldier A, and did not swear or make physical contact in the process." He said the mother's conduct was somewhat inappropriate, but added, "Such behavior was not mentally violent or cruel to the extent that it harmed Group A's mental health, and it is difficult to believe that there was intentional emotional abuse."

If she hadn't gone to a formal trial, she would have been fined for her conviction. In the end, I was acquitted, but I think the stress and legal costs of two years must have been significant. Do you think this ruling is too obvious? Let's take a look at an incident that occurred in Busan around the same time.

A mother who yelled "Don't bully!" at her daughter's abuser... Child abuse "guilty"

In September 2021, the mother of the incident confronts her middle-school-aged daughter coming home crying. She was bullied by a classmate and was crying. Angered by this, the mother visits the school where the perpetrator attends. He then called out the assailant who was in class and shouted. "I told her not to be friendly with my daughter and not to talk to her. I've been talking about it because I'm a friend in the neighborhood, but now I'm not going to put up with it." Also, when I go home after class, I say, "Don't do that again. Don't talk to my daughter, don't do anything."

In fact, the student allegedly harassed the mother's daughter from August to October 9 and received a written apology, a ban on contact, and five hours of community service from the School Violence Task Force Review Committee. However, the perpetrator complained to his parents of fear of the threat from the victim's mother. He felt threatened by this mother's behavior and was worried that he would come back. Because of this, the mother was eventually charged with child abuse, and the court found her guilty of the case.

The Busan District Court, which handed down the verdict, sentenced him to a fine of 2021 million won and one year of probation. "Considering that the victim was being treated in hospital after the crime and said she was worried that the defendant would come back, it constitutes an act of emotional abuse that harms the child's mental health and development." However, it explained the reasons for sentencing, saying, "We took into consideration the fact that the defendant cautioned his daughter not to cause further harm and that the student had received various measures for school violence."

Enlarge the image

Eventually prosecuted, regardless of guilt... The important thing is "no private sanctions"

Guilty or innocent, at the end of the day, what we have to look at here is that on both sides, prosecutors charged them with violating child abuse laws. A legal official explained that the idea was that private sanctions are not allowed for any reason. Private sanctions, "the punishment of criminals by individuals or private entities other than by the state or public authority or law." Such would be the revenge of the drama "The Glory." In fact, there is no disagreement in the legal profession that such private sanctions are very dangerous. In fact, even in 2021, when a man in his 20s who was released from prison was visited and brandished a blunt weapon, the legal community agreed with one voice about the dangers of private sanctions.

But it's still frustrating...is "let's follow the law" the only correct answer?

You may say how can it be the same as Cho Doo-sun, and this is also so-called self-defense? In fact, I thought about it myself. Let's look at Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

Article 12 (<>) All citizens shall have bodily freedom. No person shall be arrested, detained, confiscated, searched, or interrogated except in accordance with law, and shall not be punished, detained, seized, or subjected to forced labor except in accordance with law and due process.

'Except by law' and 'not by law and due process' is probably an important part of this matter.

How far is protection, and how far is private sanction? Of course, the perpetrator will also wonder why my child should be subjected to excessive child abuse and why he should be sanctioned privately. So, while the phrase "let's follow the law" is correct, I still wonder if that's the right answer. It also reminds me of the recent failed lawyer Jung Sun-shin. It's just that victim or perpetrator alike wonder how these processes will affect the growth of these children.