A middle schooler's police interview turned into a school violence report, but
we secured a decision not to open a hearing in juvenile court and a “no measures” ruling from the school violence committee

Hello, this is Managing Attorney Hyeok-seong Kwon of Kwon & Partners Law Office. Juvenile cases often split into several proceedings at once. A police investigation can lead to a juvenile protection case in Family Court, and a single remark made during questioning can then trigger a separate school violence report. Today, we introduce a case in which we represented a second-year middle school student caught up in a cigarette theft among friends. The Family Court decided not to open a hearing, closing the case without any protective measures, and the School Violence Countermeasures Committee decided to take no measures against our client.

Student A, a second-year middle schooler in Gyeonggi Province, was hanging out with friends late one night in late May 2025 when one of them stole a few packs of cigarettes from a neighborhood grocery store. The friend who actually took the items was B, and A never touched them. Because A was nearby, however, investigators treated the incident as joint theft (aggravated theft by two or more persons under Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act) and referred the case to the juvenile division of the Family Court.

The bigger problem arose during the police investigation. In July 2025, A told the police that “friend C told us to steal.” C's side then reported A for school violence, claiming the statement was false and defamatory. At the same time, it came to light that C had told other friends something to the effect of “let's say A told us to do it.” A and A's guardian suddenly faced two unfamiliar proceedings at once, a juvenile protection case in Family Court and a review by the School Violence Countermeasures Committee, and turned to Kwon & Partners Law Office for help.

There were two key issues in this case.

First, whether A, whose misconduct was minor and whose guardian showed a clear willingness to supervise, could obtain a decision not to open a hearing, which ends the case without protective measures.

Second, whether a statement naming another student during a police interview counts as “defamation” under the School Violence Prevention Act. To qualify as school violence, defamation requires “publicity,” just as defamation does under the Criminal Act: the statement must be capable of spreading to an unspecified number of people or to many people. The dispute was whether a statement made only to the police officer in charge could meet that requirement. On our client's behalf, we argued the minor nature of the misconduct and the guardian's commitment to supervision before the juvenile court, and the lack of publicity before the Committee.

Juvenile protection proceedings and school violence proceedings run separately but affect each other. Attorney Kwon handled both under a single strategy.

▪ Juvenile protection case — Clearly separated the roles of B, who actually committed the theft, and A, to show how minor A's involvement was, and submitted the guardian's concrete supervision plan and evidence of A's remorse.
▪ School violence review — Submitted a written opinion arguing that (1) A's statement matched B's account and could not be called false, (2) even if inaccurate, a statement made in a police interview room lacks publicity and cannot amount to defamation-type school violence, and (3) it was in fact C's remark to several friends, “let's say A told us to do it,” that amounted to defamation capable of spreading.
▪ Administrative appeal — When the other side challenged the Committee's decision by filing an administrative appeal with the Office of Education, we applied for intervention in the appeal on A's behalf as an interested party and continue to defend the decision.