South Korea’s 2026 School-Violence Amendment — Expert Input for Hearings Involving Students with Disabilities

01. The Amendment Focuses on Hearings Involving Students with Disabilities

The amendment to the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures against Violence in Schools, effective on 2 June 2026, supplements the expert-opinion procedure in deliberations involving students with disabilities. The main text allowing discretionary consultation is retained, while a new proviso requires the student’s or guardian’s wishes to be ascertained and an expert opinion to be obtained when requested.^[1][3]

This report addresses the new proviso to Article 16-2(2), its application date and practical preparation. Existing school-violence measures or changes to school records and university admissions made at other times should not all be described as newly introduced in June 2026.

Scroll horizontally to read the full table.

02. A Request Requires an Expert-Opinion Procedure

Revised Article 16-2(2) should be read by distinguishing its retained main text from its new proviso. Where a victim or an alleged perpetrator is a student with a disability, the main text allows the committee to have an expert attend or obtain an opinion in writing or another form. The proviso requires the committee to ascertain the wishes of that student or the guardian and, where requested, to have an expert attend or obtain the opinion in writing or another form.^[3]

Scroll horizontally to read the full table.

Without a request, obtaining an expert opinion remains discretionary under the main text; the requirement to ascertain the student’s or guardian’s wishes does not disappear. Nor is physical attendance by an expert mandatory in every case.^[3]

A guardian should, where possible, make a clear request before the hearing and retain the request’s purpose, submission date, recipient and confirmation of receipt. Check that material given to the school has reached the deliberation committee. However, the provision does not prescribe a particular form or a uniform advance application deadline, so a request made on the hearing date should not be described as automatically excluded.^[3]

03. The Procedure Is Not Limited to the Student Alleging Harm

The Ministry’s explanation expressly includes students with disabilities participating as either victim or alleged perpetrator. The procedure should not be presented as available only to one side.^[2]

An expert opinion does not automatically establish that either account is true. In preparation, it can be useful to separate the facts of the incident from questions concerning communication or support needed to participate in the hearing.

Disability should not be treated as automatically justifying every act, or as a blanket reason to discount a student’s account. Prepare the concrete statements, surrounding circumstances, objective records and proposed expert questions separately.

04. Physical Attendance Is Not the Only Permitted Method

The statutory wording allows an expert to attend or provide an opinion in writing or another form. The absence of an expert from the room therefore does not, by itself, establish that no expert opinion was obtained.^[1]

Equally, submitting material is not necessarily the same as obtaining the relevant expert input. It is useful to identify what was submitted, which expert addressed which question and whether the material reached the deliberation process.

The following questions are examples for checking the progress of the procedure, not statutory wording that must be submitted verbatim:

• What is the field of expertise of the person whose opinion will be obtained?
• Will the opinion be obtained through attendance or in writing?
• What issues and materials will be provided to the expert?
• How can receipt of the request and supporting materials be confirmed?

The amendment should not be described as conferring a right to insist on a particular individual expert or to require acceptance of the guardian’s preferred conclusion.

05. Explain the Question Requiring Expertise

When preparing a request, distinguish information already available to the school or committee from additional relevant material. Rather than submitting every sensitive clinical or counselling record, first identify the issue that the material is intended to explain.

Scroll horizontally to read the full table.

For example, where consistency of an account is disputed, it may help to record what question was asked, under what conditions, and what answer followed, then identify the issue for expert comment. This is not an advance diagnosis or a determination that the account is true or false.

06. Where a Request Was Not Reflected, Establish the Record

A request followed by no expert consultation raises an issue about compliance with the amended provision. It should not be described as automatically invalidating every resulting measure.^[1]

Collect the request, receipt evidence, responses, any attendance or written opinion records, available hearing material and the decision. Separate what actually occurred from the legal assessment of an omission and its significance.

Information supplied by the school may differ from what reached the committee, so the transmission route can matter. A person considering a challenge should not let the expert-consultation issue delay checking the review procedure and deadline stated in the decision. The appropriate route and time limit require case-specific examination.

07. LAW NOAH Analysis — Track Both the Request and the Substance of the Opinion

1) Make the request clear

Even where the committee is expected to ascertain wishes, communicating the request in writing and retaining confirmation is a clear practical approach. Organise the material so that the school and committee receive a consistent explanation.

2) Formulate questions the expert can address

A general request to understand a student differs from a concrete question about a statement, communication method or situation. Specific questions make it easier to prepare relevant material and confirm what the consultation addressed.

3) Keep procedure separate from outcome

The fact that an opinion was obtained does not settle the correctness of the final result. Equally, making a request does not guarantee a particular result. Examine procedural compliance, the opinion itself, fact-finding and the resulting measure as distinct questions.

08. Hearing Checklist and the Separate 2027 Change

Scroll horizontally to read the full table.

The separate prevention-day provision takes effect on 1 January 2027. It designates the fourth Monday in May and a one-week prevention period beginning that day. Its commencement should not be confused with the expert-opinion procedure already in force.^[1]

Practical implementation means more than citing the amendment: record the request, formulate specific expert questions and verify that the process actually occurred.