News & Event


News & Event



School of Electrical Engineering Honor Code

Code of Academic Conduct

1. (Purpose) The Code of Academic Conduct (“Code”) sets out a set of moral code and principles that students of KAIST Electrical Engineering (“EE”) must observe as future scholars or engineers. The Code seeks to establish a ground for fair competition and equal opportunity for memebers of EE by cultivating proper academic ethics.

2. (Subject) The Code applies to all students of EE and those enrolled in EE courses, including teaching assistants (tutors).

3. (Obligation) Individuals to whom the Code applies must observe the Code based on the principles of mutual trust and respect. Any act of violation of the Code is prohibited and may be subject to a disciplinary measure. Individuals to whom the Code applies are obligated to report to the department in case of witnissing or recognizing any act of violation and to dutifully partcipate in investigation conducted by Student Ethics Committee.

Violations of Code

1. (Definition and Category) Violation of the Code (“Academic Misconduct”) includes all actions that violate the principles of mutual trust and respect for EE community members, exemplied by the items listed below. Any additional action that hinders fair competition and a sound academic atmosphere may be regarded as academic misconduct without being explicitly stated.

1) [Acquiring unauthorized information] Requesting or acquiring information not authorized by academic policies

Example) Acquiring unauthorized information during exams from inside or outside of the exam site

2) [Providing unauthorized information] Providing information or support not authorized by academic policies

Example) Providing information to examinees during exams from inside or outside of the examination site

3) [Unauthorized surrogate submission] Taking exams or doing assignments on behalf of someone else

4) [Plagiarism] Copying a whole or part of others’ work or submitting others’ work as one’s own

Example) Unauthorized cooperation over exams or assignments

5) [Connivance] Neglecting to report perceived academic misconduct to the department

6) [Perjury] Giving false testimony during investigation of academic misconduct

7) [Forgery] Forging or altering graded tests, assignments, or grades

Procedure and Principle of Academic Misconduct Investigation

1. (Basis) Article 59 (Disciplinary Measures) and 60 (Type of Disciplinary Measures) of KAIST school regulations and guidelines of student disciplinary measures

Student Ethics Committee, as a sub-organization of Student Disciplinary Measure Committee, is authorized to investigate academic misconduct in the department by the procedures and principles stated in school regulations and guidelines.

2. (Report of suspicious cases and request for investigation) Investigation of Student Ethics Committee is initiated by reports from the professor in charge or other informants.

1) When the professor in charge detects a suspicious case for academic misconduct, the professor first verifies the case by self-investigation and interview with the suspect. Additional investigation and disciplinary meausres can be requested by reporting the results of the investigation to Student Ethics Committee.

– When requesting investigation to Student Ethics Committee, reports must be submitted on the progression of the case and specific actions of the suspect, as well as the course policy on sharing/refering course materials (*See Reference 1) and the way it was announced that can be used as the basis of review.

2) When informants other than the professor in charge detects a suspicious case for academic misconduct, the case must be reported to the professor in charge with documents, pictures, or a list of witnesses as a proof. The professor in charge should request for investigation to Student Ethics Committee after self-investigation as stated in 2-1).

3) When it is not convenient to report to the professor in charge due to conflicts of interest or when it is appropriate for Student Ethics Committee to investigate, it is permissible to report or request investigation directly to Student Ethics Committee.

*Student Ethics Committee Representative’s email:

3. (Student Ethics Committee investigation procedure) Suspicious cases of academic misconduct reported to Student Ethics Committee will be investigated by the following procedure.

1) If directly reported to Student Ethics Committee without inspection by the professor in charge, any conflict of interest is determined first.

a. Conflict of interest acknowledged: Student Ethics Committee guarantees the informant’s anonymity and starts investigating the details. In this case, the Chairperson of Student Ethics Committee will appoint an affiliated professor as an investigator and start investigating on the basis of submitted reports.

b. Conflict of interest not acknowledged: Student Ethics Committee informs the professor in charge of the reported case. Student Ethics Committee starts investigating after the self-investigation by the professor in charge.

2) Internal review is conducted on the reports submitted by the professor in charge and the informant.

3) Student Ethics Committee requests the suspect to submit a report describing the passage of the event, his or her actions and opinion on the case.

4) An affilitated professor designated by Student Ethics Committee conducts an interview with the suspect and submits an opinion following the interview.

5) The case for academic misconduct is determined after a comprehensive review of all the reports submitted. The suspect is asked to attend the committee for testimony if necessary.

a. Ruled as academic misconduct after investigation: Student Ethics Committee will begin a disciplinary measure review.

b. Not ruled as academic misconduct after investigation: Termination of review and disposal of all documents related to the case

3. (Principles of investigation) Investigator and the suspect must follow the principles stated below when proceeding an investigation.

1) [Anonymity and confidentiality] The suspect and informant cannot disclose information about the suspect and informant to anyone other than members of Student Ethics Committee and those in charge of deliberation. If cleared of charge, the case will be terminated and information related to the case will be discarded immediately.

2) [Protection of human rights] Student Ethics Committee and the professor in charge must investigate on the basis of objective facts and may not use any means that violates human rights (abusive language/threat/violence/imposing personal disadvantage, etc.)

3) [Prohibition of counter-punishment] For protection of the investigation requester, any counter-punishments that may inflict discomfort for the informant are prohibited unless the reports are submitted on intentionally malicious grounds.

Procedure and Principle of Disciplinary Review

 1. (Procedure of disciplinary review) If a case for academic misconduct is ruled to stand after investigation, an order for disciplinary measure may be given by the following procedure.

1) [Disciplinary punishment within the course] On the basis of disciplinary guidelines, professors may give an F grade on the course when plagiarism on exams and submitted assignments is acknowledged. If academic misconduct is conducted for more than two courses in one semester, all the courses taken during the same semester may be graded as F.

2) [Student Ethics Committee disciplinary review] Depending on the degree of academic misconduct, Student Ethics Committee may proceed with a review for additional disciplinary measures. In the Student Ethics Committee review, the committee reviews academic disciplinary measures that can be imposed within the department and decides whether the case should be forwarded to the KAIST Disciplinary Committee before reporting the decision to the dean of the department.

3) [Confirmation of disciplinary action] The dean of the department determines whether the disciplinary action should be carried within the department or forwarded to KAIST Disciplinary Committee for the final disciplinary decision.

* If a case is to be forwarded to KAIST Disciplinary Committee, the dean requests a disciplinary review to KAIST Disciplinary Committee according to school regulations. KAIST Disciplinary Commitee may impose warning, probation, limited suspension, indefinite suspension according to school regulations. The student support team is in charge of the procedure after the disciplinary review.

4) [Notification] The department notifies the final decision on the disciplinary punishment level to the subject of the disciplinary action and his or her advising professor.

5) [Requesting an appeal] If the requester of the disciplinary review or the subject of the disciplinary action has objection to the decision, an appeal for re-inspection may be filed within 10 days from the notification date.

6) [Execution of disciplinary punishment] If there are no requests for an appeal, disciplinary action will be finalized and the disciplinary punishment imposed on the subject is to be conducted within 6 months from the date when it is established. Only if the subject is not able to carry out the disciplinary action owing to unavoidable circumstances, extension of 6 months may be granted for one time only after the explanation of the extenuating circumstance is submitted and approved by Student Ethics Committee.

2. (Principles of disciplinary punishment) While Student Ethics Committee decides the degree of disciplinary measures on the basis of student disciplinary guidelines, the type, significance, willfulness, potential improvement, and the attitude of subject are also considered. Perjury/distortion of facts during the investigation is regarded as a serious violation of ethics and may result in additional punishment.

[Reference 1: Policy on sharing/referring course materials]

Policy on sharing course materials
(Including during and after the semester)

Approved (o/x)


Sharing/distributing assignment and solution



Sharing/distributing provided lecture material



Sharing/distributing content of examination



Policy on referring previous course materials

Approved (o/x)


Referring to previous assignments and solutions when working on assignments



Discussing/cooperating with classmates when working on assignments



Referring to content of previous exams



* If there is a course-specific policy, please write on the note section.  (e.g: Identifying names of collaborators and the extent of collaboration upon assignment submission when collaborating with classmates is approved)

 [Reference 2:   Article 59 (Disciplinary Measures) and 60 (Type of Disciplinary Measures) of KAIST school regulations and guidelines of student disciplinary measures]
Disciplinary measure on academic misconduct during examination and plagiarism on submitted assignments

  • In case of academic misconduct during examination and/or plagiarism on submitted assignments, an F grade is given for the course.
  • If academic misconduct is conducted for more than two courses in one semester, all the courses taken during the same semester may be graded as F.

2. Related to academics



Indefinite suspension


A. Manipulating exam grades or distributing exam content





B. Cheating on exam





C. Taking an exam for someone else





D. Plagiarism on submitted assignment





E. Participating in spurious research