We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Can Mere Participation in a Group Chat Lead to a Finding of School Violence in Korea?
As cyberbullying through group chats becomes more common, students who did not directly post insulting or defamatory messages are increasingly being included in school violence investigations conducted under Korea’s school violence response system. In many cases, students and their parents assume that there will be no consequences because the student did not personally use abusive language. However, investigators and the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee may examine not only whether the student made direct comments, but also how the student participated in the chat and reacted to the conduct of others. This article explains how Korean law and court decisions assess a student’s level of participation in a group chat and how the severity of a school violence measure may affect the student in practice. Cyberbullying, Social Exclusion, and Disciplinary Measures under Korean Law Article 2 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against Violence in Schools expressly includes both social exclusion and cyberbullying within the definition of school violence. Under the Act, social exclusion generally refers to conduct in which two or more students repeatedly subject a particular student to physical or psychological attacks that cause distress. Cyberbullying includes social exclusion and other conduct carried out through information and communications networks that causes physical, psychological, or financial harm. When school violence is established, the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee may request that the superintendent of the relevant local education office impose one or more of the following measures on the student responsible. Measure Description Measures 1–3 Written apology, prohibition on contact, threats, or retaliation, and school-based community service Measures 4–6 Community service, special education or psychological treatment, and suspension from school Measures 7–8 Transfer to another class or another school Measure 9 Expulsion, except for students in compulsory education Source: Article 17(1) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against Violence in Schools A student or parent who disagrees with a measure may challenge it through an administrative appeal under Article 17-2 or an administrative lawsuit under Article 17-3 of the Act. How Korean Courts Assess Participation in a Group Chat Korean courts interpret the concept of school violence broadly. In Seoul Administrative Court Case No. 2014Guhap250, the court held that school violence is not limited to the specific categories listed in the statute, such as assault, defamation, or insult. It may also include similar conduct that causes physical, psychological, or financial harm to a student. Courts have also distinguished cases according to the extent of the student’s participation. In Seoul Central District Court Case No. 2017Kahap80876, the court considered disparaging remarks exchanged in a group chat that the alleged victim had not joined. The court held that it was necessary to examine whether the conduct was directed at causing harm to the student at the time it occurred and whether actual harm resulted. The later disclosure of the chat, by itself, was not necessarily sufficient to establish school violence. Practical investigation guidelines also reflect the importance of the degree of participation. Guidance issued by Korea’s Ministry of Education and local education authorities recognizes that school violence may arise not only between the direct aggressor and the victim, but also in a broader peer environment involving students who encourage, support, or passively tolerate the conduct. As a result, investigators may review the statements and reactions of all participants in the group chat. Accordingly, the absence of a direct insulting message does not automatically exclude a student from the investigation. At the same time, simply being present in a group chat does not, by itself, establish participation in school violence. The decision may depend on whether the student repeatedly reacted in support of ridicule or exclusion, actively encouraged the conduct, helped spread the content, or otherwise participated in a way that contributed to the harm. Factors Used to Determine the Level of Participation During the investigation and committee review, the following factors may be considered together. ▪️Frequency and content of messages Even where the student did not post direct insults, repeated emojis, short comments, or other reactions supporting the ridicule may be viewed as evidence of participation. ▪️Reason for remaining in the group chat Investigators may examine whether the student understood that the conduct was continuing, how long the student remained in the chat, and whether there was a reasonable explanation for not leaving, such as the chat also being used for class notices or group activities. ▪️Scope and context of screenshots Screenshots are often used as key investigative materials, even when the original messages have been deleted. However, a partial screenshot may not show the entire context, so the messages before and after the captured conversation should also be reviewed where possible. The Practical Impact of Different School Violence Measures The retention period of a school violence measure in a student’s school record differs according to the level of the measure. Measure General Retention Period Measures 1–3 Generally deleted upon graduation Measures 4–6 Retained for two years after graduation Measures 7–8 Retained for four years after graduation Measure 9 Not subject to ordinary deletion Source: Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Measures 4 through 7 may, in certain circumstances, be deleted upon graduation if the student has faithfully completed the measure and is considered unlikely to reoffend, following review by the school’s dedicated school violence body. Beginning with the 2026 university admissions cycle, school violence records must be reflected across university admissions pathways in Korea. The specific method of assessment varies by university, but the level of the measure may have a direct impact on the student’s admissions prospects. For this reason, where a student’s role in a group chat is unclear, it is important to explain the entire conversation, the student’s actual level of participation, and the reason the student remained in the chat from the earliest stage of the investigation. Legal Support for Group Chat and Cyberbullying Cases Group chat and cyberbullying matters may involve several stages, including the review of chat screenshots, assessment of the student’s level of participation, preparation for investigator interviews and committee proceedings, and, where necessary, administrative appeals or litigation challenging the final measure. The School Violence Practice Team at Decent Law Firm advises students and parents from the initial investigation stage through committee proceedings and post-decision challenges. Where a child has received notice of an investigation involving a group chat, the full conversation and the circumstances of the child’s participation should be reviewed before a written statement is submitted. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.
-
Livelihood-Based Objection for DUI License Suspension or Revocation in Korea: When Reduction May Be Excluded
If your driver’s license has been suspended or revoked due to DUI in Korea, you may file an objection with the competent metropolitan or provincial police agency within 60 days from the date you receive the disposition. One of the grounds for reduction is when driving is an essential means of supporting the applicant’s family. In practice, this is often referred to as a “livelihood-based objection.” However, even if driving is important for your work or livelihood, certain circumstances may exclude you from reduction from the outset. This article explains the legal basis of the livelihood-based objection and the key situations where a reduction may not be available. Legal Basis and Possible Effect of an Objection An objection against a driver’s license suspension or revocation due to DUI is based on Article 94 of the Korean Road Traffic Act and Articles 95 and 96 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. The objection must be filed within 60 days from the date the disposition is received. Once filed, the case is reviewed by the Administrative Review Committee for Driver’s License Dispositions, which may decide whether the disposition can be reduced. The Enforcement Rule sets out several grounds for reduction. One of the most commonly used grounds is where driving is an essential means of maintaining the livelihood of the applicant’s family. If this ground is accepted, a license revocation may be reduced to a 110-day license suspension. A license suspension may also be reduced by up to one-half of the original suspension period. When Reduction May Be Excluded Before reviewing whether driving is necessary for livelihood, the authorities first check whether any exclusion grounds apply. Reduction may be excluded in the following cases: ▪️Blood alcohol concentration over 0.1% If the driver’s BAC exceeded 0.1% at the time of detection. ▪️Traffic accident involving personal injury If the DUI resulted in an accident where another person was injured. ▪️Refusal to take a breathalyzer test, fleeing the scene, or assaulting a police officer If the driver refused testing, fled, or used violence against an officer during enforcement. ▪️Repeated personal injury accidents within the past five years If the driver caused three or more traffic accidents involving personal injury within the past five years. ▪️Prior DUI record within the past five years If the driver has a previous DUI record within the past five years. Source: Appendix 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act These grounds apply independently. This means that even one applicable ground may exclude the applicant from reduction, regardless of how important driving is for work or family livelihood. Even a first-time DUI offender may be excluded if the BAC level exceeds the applicable threshold or if a personal injury accident occurred. What to Check Before Filing an Objection Before preparing a livelihood-based objection, it is important to review the following points in order. First, check the BAC level at the time of detection. If it exceeded 0.1%, reduction may be excluded. Second, check whether there was any accident, refusal to take a breathalyzer test, fleeing, or other aggravating circumstance. Third, if no exclusion ground applies, prepare documents showing that driving is necessary for maintaining livelihood. These may include an employment certificate, business registration certificate, client or delivery records, income documents, and other materials showing that driving is essential for work. If an objection is filed only with a statement of hardship, without first checking the exclusion grounds, the 60-day filing period may be used up without meaningful review. How Decent Law Firm Can Assist In livelihood-based DUI objections, the possibility of reduction does not depend only on whether the applicant is a first-time offender. BAC level, accident history, refusal to comply with testing, and prior DUI records are critical factors that determine whether reduction may be available at all. Decent Law Firm’s criminal defense team reviews DUI-related administrative dispositions, including objections and administrative appeals, from the initial stage. If you have received notice of license suspension or revocation in Korea, it is important to review your eligibility before the 60-day deadline expires.
