The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a parent secretly placed a voice recorder in their child's bag to record classroom conversations, statements and testimonies secured independently from the recording can still be admitted as evidence in child abuse cases.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) recently finalized a lower court ruling that sentenced an elementary school teacher, A, to a fine of 5 million won for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes.

Teacher A, who taught at an elementary school in Busan, was put on trial for emotionally abusing a 9-year-old student by repeatedly making remarks in front of other students such as, "You are stressing me out," and "How can you expect to get anywhere when you study so poorly?"

The first trial court recognized the charges based on the legal statements of the victimized child and parents, as well as a questionnaire administered to classmates, sentencing A to one year in prison suspended for two years.

The court also ordered 160 hours of community service and a five-year employment restriction at child-related institutions.

However, the court did not admit the audio file recorded by the parent, who had put a recorder in the child's bag to capture conversations inside the classroom, as evidence.

The current Protection of Communications Secrets Act prohibits the recording of "private conversations between others that are not open to the public," and deems any contents recorded in violation of this ineligible for evidentiary use.

In response, A argued during the appeal that "although the lower court rejected the evidentiary admissibility of the recording file, it used statements and court testimonies written based on that file as evidence of guilt," claiming that the evidence accepted by the lower court lacked admissibility as it constituted secondary evidence derived from unlawfully collected evidence.

A also argued that the lower court's sentence was excessively heavy.

The appellate court rejected A's argument, stating that the victimized child had provided consistent statements from the investigative stage through to the court testimony, and that there was no circumstance suggesting the first instance court relied heavily on the recording file to determine guilt.

The appellate court ruled, "Even if the victim's mother used unlawful methods to record conversations inside the classroom to verify the facts of the damage, such circumstances alone cannot justify excluding the evidentiary admissibility of the statements made by the victimized child or guardian."

However, taking into account that certain charges were difficult to classify as emotional abuse, the appellate court accepted A's appeal regarding unfair sentencing, reducing the penalty to a fine of 5 million won.

The court also ordered the completion of 40 hours of a child abuse treatment program.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no issues with the lower court's ruling.

The Supreme Court stated, "The lower court did not misunderstand legal principles regarding the exclusionary rule for illegally collected evidence and the admissibility of secondary evidence."

(Photo: Provided by Yonhap News TV, Yonhap News)