Court: The overall use of language and behavior by teachers did not deviate from educational purposes. The first instance judgment of the Jiangxi boy jumping off a building case has been announced for trial | Parents | Private Prosecutor | Punishment | Court | Education | Defendant | Zhang

On August 9, 2023, at 9:30 am, the People's Court of Lianxi District, Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province, publicly announced the first instance verdict on the case of private prosecutors Zhang and Wang accusing defendant Zou of insulting and abusing a person under guardianship.

On November 9, 2021, around 16:00, Zhang fell and died in a residential area across from the school. The public security organs received a report and arrived at the scene. They found a suicide note on Zhang's body, which read, "I, myself Zhang, sincerely admit that my death is not related to my parents, parents, society, or the country, but only to Zou. She used violent means. Signed by Zhang, with a red fingerprint under the signature and a middle finger next to it.". On December 3, 2021, after investigation, the public security organs concluded that there were no illegal facts and decided to terminate the investigation. Zhang's parents subsequently filed a criminal self prosecution with the Lianxi District People's Court in Jiujiang City, requesting the court to hold the defendant Zou criminally responsible for the crimes of insult and abuse of the person being watched over.

According to the Criminal Procedure Law, the burden of proof for the defendant's guilt in a private prosecution case shall be borne by the private prosecutor. In the trial of this case, the private prosecutor applied to the court four times to retrieve evidence, and the court allowed them to do so, and lawfully retrieved relevant documentary evidence, witness testimony, audio-visual materials, and other evidence.

After trial, the court found that the defendant Zou was Zhang's class teacher and Chinese teacher. Prior to the incident, Zhang had repeatedly failed to complete homework tasks according to the prescribed time, form, and quality, and had taken multiple leave requests. According to classroom surveillance videos, from October 26 to November 9, 2021, the defendant Zou criticized Zhang for not completing homework tasks according to the prescribed time, format, and quality, and not answering questions correctly during the teaching process. He also used language criticism such as "stupid brain", "debt king", "untrustworthy words", "biting a notebook to eat", and "common customs". He also carried out behaviors such as patting the head and neck with a book, standing for about half an hour, changing seats, and standing at the podium to read the text after class.

The court, after trial, believes that whether the defendant Zou's behavior constitutes insulting behavior in the crime of insult requires an accurate distinction between insulting behavior and educational punishment behavior. Whether the behavior of the defendant Zou exceeds the reasonable limits of educational punishment stipulated by relevant education laws and regulations, constitutes an insulting behavior that undermines the personality and reputation of others in the crime of insult, and requires comprehensive consideration of the legitimacy of its purpose, the legality of its means, and the degree of equivalence. After reviewing the existing evidence, it was found that the defendant Zou's criticism, education, and punishment towards Zhang occurred during the normal process of education and teaching. Although there were inappropriate language and behavior, they did not deviate from the educational purpose as a whole, aiming to encourage Zhang to better complete the learning task and take it as a warning, understanding, and correcting mistakes; The education and disciplinary measures adopted generally do not violate the provisions of the "Disciplinary Rules for Primary and Secondary School Education" issued by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, and to a certain extent, they are basically consistent with Zhang's behavior; In the basic understanding of Zhang's classmates, there was no negative impact on Zhang's personality or reputation. The court believes that the defendant Zou's behavior does not meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of insult and does not constitute the crime of insult. Regarding the accusation made by the private prosecutor that the defendant constituted the crime of abusing the ward, after trial, it was found that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant Zou committed the abusive behavior claimed by the private prosecutor towards Zhang. The private prosecutor's accusation that the defendant Zou committed abusive behavior towards other classmates is currently unsupported by other evidence and beyond the scope of his private prosecution, which does not fall within the scope of this case's trial. Therefore, the defendant Zou was acquitted in accordance with the law.

However, the defendant Zou's language and behavior of criticism, education, and punishment did not meet the relevant requirements of teacher ethics and conduct construction, and he also lacked care and care for the psychological emotions of students. He did not timely strengthen his assistance to students and communication with parents. The education regulatory department has imposed corresponding party discipline and government penalties on their violations of teacher ethics and conduct.

The court is deeply saddened and regretful for Zhang's suicide in this case, and calls on the whole society to pay more attention to the education of minors. Schools and teachers should pay more attention to the ways and methods of education, attach greater importance to home school cooperation, actively communicate with parents, and strive for their understanding, support, and cooperation in implementing measures such as criticism, education, and punishment; Parents should cooperate with schools and teachers to educate their children and jointly promote the healthy growth of minors.

After the first instance verdict was announced, the private prosecutors Zhang and Wang appealed in court, while the defendant Zou refused to appeal. Some representatives of the National People's Congress, members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, personnel from relevant units, media reporters, and the public listened to the verdict.