A court has ruled that the Ministry of Justice’s decision to restrict a law school student from taking the bar exam was lawful, after the student was caught using a mobile phone during the test and demanded that officials "bring a warrant."

On July 16, the Seoul Administrative Court’s 12th Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won) ruled against the plaintiff, identified as A, in a lawsuit filed against the Minister of Justice to cancel the suspension of their eligibility to take the bar exam.

A had been barred from taking the exam for five years by the Ministry of Justice for possessing and using a mobile phone during the test.

As the Bar Examination Act prevents A from taking the exam further, A filed the lawsuit in July 2025 to challenge the disciplinary action.

Current law stipulates that candidates may only take the bar exam five times within five years of obtaining a master’s degree from a law school.

A argued that there were no grounds for the disciplinary action, claiming that they only possessed the phone but did not use it, and that no illicit materials were stored on the device.

A further argued that even if the grounds for the disciplinary action were acknowledged, the penalty was excessively harsh compared to the severity of the misconduct, constituting an abuse of discretion by the Ministry of Justice.

However, the court rejected all of A’s arguments.

Testimony from on-site proctors and assistants regarding the situation at the time of the incident was crucial in confirming the grounds for the disciplinary action.

They testified that A was observed repeatedly taking something out, placing it under the exam paper, and glancing at it. When they demanded that A surrender the phone, A refused for three to four minutes, demanding that they "bring a warrant."

The court found the testimony credible, noting that A’s reaction could not be reasonably explained.

The court stated that if it had been a mistake or simple possession, it would be consistent with common sense and experience for the candidate to immediately show the phone to the proctor and strongly argue that it was not used for cheating, especially given the nature of the exam where candidates must complete answers within a limited time.

The court also pointed out that the fact that the phone was wrapped in white paper and the screen was set to display only white, with no icons visible, was "highly unusual in light of common usage."

A explained this by claiming that "a fortune teller said white was good, so I attached white paper," but the court dismissed this as "an explanation that is difficult to view as reasonable."

Furthermore, the court considered A’s refusal to comply with the Ministry of Justice’s request for a forensic examination as a factor weighing against the plaintiff.

The court ruled that even if no specific illicit materials were found on the phone, the device could still be used to access information networks or data stored in applications, thus falling under the grounds for disciplinary action.

Moreover, the court stated that considering the high level of ethics required of lawyers, the legislative intent of the Bar Examination Act, and the reality that detecting cheating is becoming increasingly difficult due to technological advancements, it is difficult to conclude that the Ministry of Justice abused its discretion.

(Photo: Yonhap News)