Thirteen years ago, the public was outraged when it was revealed that 16 high school students had gang-raped a disabled female student.

Even though none of the perpetrators were criminally prosecuted, the repercussions of the incident are still ongoing.

A group of high school students storm into the courtroom with their jumpers turned upside down and their faces covered.

In May 2010, 16 high school students were accused of sexually assaulting a middle school girl with intellectual disabilities multiple times over a period of just over a month.

They summoned the middle school girl they met through an internet chat and forcibly molested her on the roof of the building.

But the court was lenient.

Following the dismissal of the arrest warrants filed against the perpetrators, the case was transferred to the Juvenile Division rather than the Criminal Division.

This was because they did not have a history of flying, they had an agreement with the victim student, and they were at a critical crossroads in their lives, such as college entrance exams.

In addition, the court kept the proceedings and the outcome of the trial completely private in order to protect the identities of the perpetrators.

They even postponed the sentencing date until after the graduation date to make it easier for the high school perpetrators to enter college.

Therefore, all 16 people are put on probation, and they do not remain criminal convictions and are not recorded in their criminal records.

In fact, it was even criticized as an acquittal.

[Lee Won-pyo, Secretary General of the CEDAW Coalition for the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (in 2011): It's okay to do this, it's okay, but if I live well and my house is strong, I can be okay.

Compared to 13 years ago, there has been an increase in the number of serious sexual violence crimes brought to criminal trials instead of juvenile protection trials, which seems to be a reflection of current public opinion and changes in perceptions of sexual violence crimes. However, whether to refer the case to a juvenile protection trial or a criminal trial does not necessarily depend solely on the seriousness or seriousness of the crime itself. (We make a judgment) based on a combination of factors, such as the possibility of improvement of the juvenile in custody and the circumstances in which this incident occurred.]

There was a flurry of talk about the trial of the case, and the aftermath of this verdict continued.

Immediately afterwards, one of the perpetrators was admitted to Sungkyunkwan University as an admissions officer.

My personal statements and teacher recommendations to the university omitted the fact of sexual assault.

[Kim Yoon-bae, Director of Admissions at Sungkyunkwan University (in 2012): There was no indication in the recommendation letter that this student was involved in the incident.

The teacher who wrote the letter of recommendation said that it was difficult for her to refuse requests from students and parents to write an application because of her service experience.

[School official (in 2012): The student asked me to write (the application) because the trial was not over, but it was difficult for the homeroom teacher not to write it, so I wrote it.]

Now, 13 years later, the case is still ongoing.

It was revealed that one of the perpetrators is currently working as an elementary school teacher in Gyeonggi-do.

This was posted in an online community on Dec. 20.

The author of the post, who introduced himself as an acquaintance of the perpetrator, claimed that the perpetrators of the incident were not properly punished and that some of them are now in public office, such as elementary school teachers and firefighters.

Some even revealed that they went to prestigious universities and are doing well.

As the outcry grew, the education authorities immediately launched an investigation.

The Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education said it had removed the teacher named as the person from work.

[Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education: It's true that the teacher is not working, but it's a matter that we're investigating, so I think it's hard to say that we're investigating it.]

However, the teacher who was singled out reportedly stated that the article was not true and that it was untrue.

However, even if the content of this article turns out to be true, it is expected that it will be difficult to take any definite action because it was already before the appointment of the teacher and the punishment has already ended legally.

[Attorney Kim Jin-young: Since the conviction for sexual offenses is a reason for disqualification for appointment under the Education and Public Officials Act, I would not have been appointed if the criminal punishment had been carried out instead of juvenile protection at that time.

At the time of the ruling, the Korean Federation of Women's Organizations cited the case as a major stumbling block in sexual assault trials.

Thirteen years later, it still seems to be a stumbling block in our society.