I don't think the ML was cheating. The female doctor works in the behavioral unit, it was on the nameplate at…
she like him he is fond of her what else you need for cheating ? if its not sexual then can we call it emotional cheating because when FL even talk with her male friends few minutes it is frame as cheating but since story focus on ML anything he do will be justified.....
Kang taeju had a gun he fire it Twice in air cops had bananas in there asses ? No one even shoot at him kang taeju and his friend was about to kill a cop ? are they cops or teenagers with no guts
well it is not about ferrari well was waiting to the final ep to watch it after i can find if it doesnt lean toward an incest relationship justification
I understand your point, and I actually agree with part of it. Students who commit serious crimes such as drug…
I think that's exactly why corporal punishment is such a dangerous path. The biggest problem isn't just the punishment itself—it's who gets to decide when it's justified and who is "worthy" of using that power. Once adults are given legal authority to physically punish children, it becomes very easy for that power to be abused.
I come from India, another large Asian country, and despite corporal punishment being illegal, we still regularly see tragic news stories about it, especially in villages and smaller towns where the culture hasn't completely disappeared.
One case that has always stayed with me involved a young girl who was forced by her teacher to stand outside in the blazing summer sun for hours as punishment. The heat was far beyond what a small child could endure, and she tragically died. The teacher was later arrested and punished, but that couldn't bring the child back.
That's why I'm very skeptical of giving teachers or any authority figure more power over students. Power can corrupt, and even well-intentioned systems can end up harming innocent children when the wrong people are placed in positions of authority.
Ironically, the drama shows the opposite extreme as well. In Korea, juvenile offenders below a certain age often receive lighter legal consequences, and some students—especially those from influential families—feel untouchable. That's a real problem too. But I don't think the answer is to replace one dangerous imbalance with another by giving teachers extraordinary powers. A better legal system that holds both students and adults accountable is a much safer solution.
I agree with your core points. And i do wish they had an episode that had the erpb directly face the negative…
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.
You argue that the rich and powerful abuse their influence, but when I look at the male lead, I don't see someone fundamentally different from the people the drama criticizes. He's highly trained, physically powerful, politically protected, and backed by one of the most influential figures in the education system. In practice, he has more power than many of the people he's fighting.
Take Episode 1 for example. The bully is protected by his politician father, but the male lead is protected by the Education Minister, who is also his father-in-law. By the end of the conflict, it doesn't feel like justice defeating privilege. It feels like one powerful family defeating another more powerful family.
You also asked for an example where the male lead acted first. Episode 1 provides one. In the classroom, when the student refused to obey him, the male lead physically grabbed him and forced his face onto the desk. The student had not physically attacked him at that moment. The male lead initiated the use of force.
I agree that the drama raises real problems that deserve attention and that reforms are needed. My issue is with the solution it presents. If the answer to abuse of power is simply giving even more power to a government-backed group with legal immunity, then that starts looking less like reform and more like authoritarianism.
You mention that the male lead is willing to take responsibility for his actions. But what does "taking responsibility" actually mean when he enjoys legal immunity and political protection? Responsibility only matters when there are real consequences.
Yet he faced no prison sentence and no meaningful legal consequences. Why? Because he had a powerful and influential father-in-law protecting him. That's exactly the kind of privilege and unequal application of justice that the drama claims to oppose.
So when the story asks me to see him as a symbol of accountability, I struggle with that. To me, he's another example of someone operating above the rules that ordinary people are expected to follow.
I agree with your core points. And i do wish they had an episode that had the erpb directly face the negative…
I agree with your first paragraph that bullying, abuse, corruption, and other problems in the education system need to be addressed, and that innocent students deserve protection.
Where I disagree is with the idea that the male lead is truly taking responsibility for his actions.
Saying "I will take responsibility" is easy when your father-in-law is powerful enough to protect you. The drama literally gives him legal immunity through political connections. That means accountability becomes optional for him. Ordinary citizens don't get that choice. If they commit assault or attempted murder, they face arrest, trial, and punishment whether they want to "take responsibility" or not.
You also mention the team's reconnaissance work to avoid harming innocent people. But the drama itself shows examples where they get things wrong or treat people unfairly. In Episode 4, the male lead kept his plan secret from his own team. The female lead interrogated an innocent student in a closed room as if he were a dangerous criminal, simply because he fought back against an abusive teacher. That's not exactly a flawless system that guarantees innocent people won't suffer.
And when we talk about accountability, what consequences did the male lead actually face for attempted murder? No court case. No prison sentence. No legal punishment. His connections shielded him from the consequences that an ordinary person would face.
The drama criticizes powerful people abusing their authority and bullying weaker people. My question is: how is the male lead fundamentally different when he's an adult using violence against minors while being protected by political power and legal immunity?
That's why I don't see him as a symbol of accountability. I see him as another example of someone operating above the rules that everyone else is expected to follow.
he is fond of her
what else you need for cheating ?
if its not sexual then can we call it emotional cheating
because when FL even talk with her male friends few minutes it is frame as cheating
but since story focus on ML anything he do will be justified.....
who arrive late every time, then gossip
cops had bananas in there asses ?
No one even shoot at him
kang taeju and his friend was about to kill a cop ?
are they cops or teenagers with no guts
Or he might have sold all other things then one he use to stay in..
HOW ?
well was waiting to the final ep to watch it after i can find if it doesnt lean toward an incest relationship justification
I come from India, another large Asian country, and despite corporal punishment being illegal, we still regularly see tragic news stories about it, especially in villages and smaller towns where the culture hasn't completely disappeared.
One case that has always stayed with me involved a young girl who was forced by her teacher to stand outside in the blazing summer sun for hours as punishment. The heat was far beyond what a small child could endure, and she tragically died. The teacher was later arrested and punished, but that couldn't bring the child back.
That's why I'm very skeptical of giving teachers or any authority figure more power over students. Power can corrupt, and even well-intentioned systems can end up harming innocent children when the wrong people are placed in positions of authority.
Ironically, the drama shows the opposite extreme as well. In Korea, juvenile offenders below a certain age often receive lighter legal consequences, and some students—especially those from influential families—feel untouchable. That's a real problem too. But I don't think the answer is to replace one dangerous imbalance with another by giving teachers extraordinary powers. A better legal system that holds both students and adults accountable is a much safer solution.
You argue that the rich and powerful abuse their influence, but when I look at the male lead, I don't see someone fundamentally different from the people the drama criticizes. He's highly trained, physically powerful, politically protected, and backed by one of the most influential figures in the education system. In practice, he has more power than many of the people he's fighting.
Take Episode 1 for example. The bully is protected by his politician father, but the male lead is protected by the Education Minister, who is also his father-in-law. By the end of the conflict, it doesn't feel like justice defeating privilege. It feels like one powerful family defeating another more powerful family.
You also asked for an example where the male lead acted first. Episode 1 provides one. In the classroom, when the student refused to obey him, the male lead physically grabbed him and forced his face onto the desk. The student had not physically attacked him at that moment. The male lead initiated the use of force.
I agree that the drama raises real problems that deserve attention and that reforms are needed. My issue is with the solution it presents. If the answer to abuse of power is simply giving even more power to a government-backed group with legal immunity, then that starts looking less like reform and more like authoritarianism.
You mention that the male lead is willing to take responsibility for his actions. But what does "taking responsibility" actually mean when he enjoys legal immunity and political protection? Responsibility only matters when there are real consequences.
You also acknowledged that his attempt to kill the student responsible for his fiancée's death was unjustified. But if he had succeeded, you say he would have gone to jail. My question is: why would success matter legally? Attempted murder is already a serious crime. He intentionally tried to kill someone. The fact that he failed doesn't make the crime disappear.
Yet he faced no prison sentence and no meaningful legal consequences. Why? Because he had a powerful and influential father-in-law protecting him. That's exactly the kind of privilege and unequal application of justice that the drama claims to oppose.
So when the story asks me to see him as a symbol of accountability, I struggle with that. To me, he's another example of someone operating above the rules that ordinary people are expected to follow.
Where I disagree is with the idea that the male lead is truly taking responsibility for his actions.
Saying "I will take responsibility" is easy when your father-in-law is powerful enough to protect you. The drama literally gives him legal immunity through political connections. That means accountability becomes optional for him. Ordinary citizens don't get that choice. If they commit assault or attempted murder, they face arrest, trial, and punishment whether they want to "take responsibility" or not.
You also mention the team's reconnaissance work to avoid harming innocent people. But the drama itself shows examples where they get things wrong or treat people unfairly. In Episode 4, the male lead kept his plan secret from his own team. The female lead interrogated an innocent student in a closed room as if he were a dangerous criminal, simply because he fought back against an abusive teacher. That's not exactly a flawless system that guarantees innocent people won't suffer.
And when we talk about accountability, what consequences did the male lead actually face for attempted murder? No court case. No prison sentence. No legal punishment. His connections shielded him from the consequences that an ordinary person would face.
The drama criticizes powerful people abusing their authority and bullying weaker people. My question is: how is the male lead fundamentally different when he's an adult using violence against minors while being protected by political power and legal immunity?
That's why I don't see him as a symbol of accountability. I see him as another example of someone operating above the rules that everyone else is expected to follow.