The first trial began today (July 22, 2026) in the 24-day "lacquer spray occupation protest" that shook Dongduk Women's University in 2024. Despite the school's claimed damages of approximately 4.6 billion won and serious charges brought by prosecutors, 11 defendant students denied all allegations, claiming there was "no intent or use of force," promising fierce courtroom battles.

At today's first hearing presided over by Judge Kim Bo-ra of the Seoul Northern District Court's Criminal Division 1, 11 students including former Student Government President Choi Moo-o completely denied all charges brought by prosecutors, including obstruction of business, joint refusal to vacate, property damage, and false imprisonment. They argued that "during the protest, we did not intentionally obstruct business or exercise force, and did not receive any lawful request to vacate from the school." In particular, one defendant, Lee Moo-o, faces charges of false imprisonment of a staff member at the president's office.

The case that prompted this trial was a 24-day occupation of Dongduk Women's University's main building and lacquer spray protest that lasted from November to December 2024. At the time, students protested against the school's plan to transition to coeducation, and during the process, the main building and other structures were reportedly sprayed with lacquer paint.

[Photo=Yonhapnews]

Prosecutors believe the protest disrupted the school's normal operations, damaged property, and that the defendants failed to comply with evacuation requests while confining a specific staff member. The school estimated damages from the protest at approximately 4.6 billion won. However, the defendants admitted to the lacquer spray action itself while countering that "this was merely a temporary expression, not property damage that permanently harmed the building's utility or value."

This case garnered attention because the investigation and subsequent trial proceeded despite the school withdrawing its complaint against the protesting students. This is because the charges do not fall under "crimes not subject to prosecution if the complainant withdraws," and the case was transferred to prosecutors in June 2025. The Student Coalition expressed the position that "it is questionable whether forcefully pursuing criminal punishment for internal university conflicts serves the public interest."

With conflicting arguments over protest methods, freedom of expression, and the legal definition of property damage fiercely opposing each other, the next trial date is scheduled for September 16. There is growing attention to how this ruling will affect future methods of resolving campus disputes and the scope of student activism.