Private messages and one-on-one conduct do not consitute ostracism, courts find
A recent appellate ruling overturned a lower court decision, finding that sexual and appearance-based remarks made by two students about a classmate through Instagram direct messages did not constitute school bullying, according to the Gwangju High Court on Friday.
In the case, the students evaluated the classmate’s appearance and said, “I don’t like her because she does 'nammisae' stuff.” Nammisae is a Korean slang term referring to women seen as overly obsessed with men.
The classmate subject to the unflattering comments later discovered the messages after finding one of the students’ phones unlocked and viewing the Instagram conversation without consent. The appellate court ruled that the remarks did not amount to bullying because they lacked “publicity,” a legal concept referring to whether a statement was made openly or communicated to an unspecified number of people.
Although the ruling was issued months ago, legal experts and advocates say it reflects a longer-running problem in South Korea’s approach to school violence: an overly narrow definition of bullying that fails to fully capture the social, psychological and cumulative forms of harm many students face.
‘Publicity’ seen as key factor
According to Ministry of Education data, 6.9 percent of all school bullying cases in 2023 occurred online. The figure rose to 7.8 percent in 2025.
“The key is publicity, whether the statement was made in a situation where an unspecified number of people could perceive it,” attorney Ko Byung-soo of law firm YK said in an interview with local media. “Slurs and mockery posted in online spaces such as group chats, social media and online posts can easily meet the standard for publicity.”
However, the Gwangju High Court ruling highlighted the court’s view that personal messaging constitutes a private conversation and therefore does not meet the standard for defamation.
“Rulings finding that cyber violence does not constitute school bullying when it lacks the potential to spread are accumulating,” a Seoul Administrative Court official said. “Courts are saying that rough conversations between students in chat rooms should not simply be labeled school bullying.”
Courts have also ruled similarly in offline cases, underscoring publicity as an important factor.
In a 2022 ruling, the Daegu District Court found that a student’s comments to another student about a classmate’s mother in a high school dormitory did not constitute school bullying.
In that case, too, the court pointed to the fact that the comments were not disseminated beyond the private conversation.
Bullying threshold also hinges on numbers
Court rulings have also indicated that bullying must involve two or more perpetrators.
In another case, one student sent malicious text messages about a classmate to another student, who then informed the classmate about the remarks.
The classmate, however, accused the student who relayed the messages of being a “liar” and “an instigator of bullying,” claiming she had tried to drive a wedge within the friend group.
The classmate was subjected to disciplinary measures for ostracizing the student through name-calling and later filed an administrative suit seeking to overturn them.
The court sided with the plaintiff, saying it was unlawful to impose disciplinary measures for ostracism over conduct carried out by a single person.
Under South Korean law, group ostracism is defined as acts in or outside school in which two or more students continuously or repeatedly inflict physical or psychological harm on a specific student, causing suffering.
Experts said responses must evolve to reflect the increasingly complex and varied forms of school bullying.
“It is difficult to resolve subtle issues such as cyberbullying simply by saying we will provide preventive education or create counseling channels,” Han Sung-jun, head of the Good Teachers Movement, said. “The content of relationship restoration needs to be made more concrete, and its scope of application should be broadened.”
A court official said taking students to court is not an experience to be encouraged.
“The court’s message is that, whenever possible, these matters should be resolved educationally without students having to come to court,” the official said.
seungku99@heraldcorp.com
