Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Internal Action

Seoul National University professor penalised 36 of 62 computer engineering students who, he says, admitted using banned generative AI on assignments

In the first semester of 2026, 36 of the 62 students in a fourth-year computer engineering course on computer networking at Seoul National University were penalised for using AI on coding assignments, according to an SNU official and the course's professor as reported by JoongAng Ilbo and Yonhap on 30 July 2026. The syllabus said all course activities would be conducted without generative AI. The professor gave zero marks on the affected assignments to 25 students who came forward and a D-minus course grade to 11 who admitted AI use only when interviewed; he said all 36 admitted using AI. The department's student government objected that the criteria were unclear and that honest students were penalised while others may not have been; the professor rejected this. On 16 October 2026 a lawmaker raised SNU's AI cheating incidents at the National Assembly audit, and the university president said its AI guidelines needed to be supplemented.

AI system
Unidentified AI coding tool
Occurred
2026
Reported
30 July 2026
Event location
South Korea
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Educational Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Education
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts
6 claims: 6 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
36 people

AI system as recorded: Generative AI used by students to produce code for assignments in a course that banned it; the tools are not named in the reports

What Happened

The course and the ban. A fourth-year computer engineering course at Seoul National University on the principles and operation of computer networks required coding for its assignments. According to the syllabus as reported by JoongAng Ilbo, all course activities were to be conducted without generative AI.

Detection. The professor told JoongAng Ilbo that he found signs of AI use in many submissions during the semester, asked students who had used AI to come forward and then interviewed every student at the end of the semester. He said some suspected submissions contained code that neither he nor the teaching assistants could understand and that students could not explain; according to the report, entering the same assignment into AI produced code similar to students' answers.

Penalties. According to an SNU official and the professor, 36 of the 62 students were penalised. Twenty-five who disclosed their AI use received zero marks on the affected assignments; eleven who admitted it only at interview received a D-minus for the whole course. Some had used AI on two or more of the four assignments. The professor said all 36 admitted using AI.

Objection. The department's student government sent the professor a written objection saying the criteria for judging AI use were unclear and that students who had not used AI might have been wrongly penalised. Hankyoreh reported that the letter also said students who answered honestly were penalised while others who denied use may have escaped; the professor told the paper he could not accept that argument.

Parliamentary audit. At the National Assembly education committee's audit of the university on 16 October 2026, a lawmaker said SNU's AI guidelines were being rendered ineffective, citing incidents in a general-education course and the engineering course. The university president said the guidelines needed to be supplemented and revised.

Reported harm

According to the professor and an SNU official, 36 students received zero marks on assignments or a D-minus course grade after admitting banned AI use; the student government disputes the fairness of the criteria.

How Harm Occurred

Students used generative AI to write code for assignments in a course that banned it; the professor treated the admitted AI use as cheating and imposed zero marks or a D-minus course grade.

Outcome

Resolved

According to the professor, 25 students who disclosed AI use voluntarily received zero marks on the affected assignments and 11 who admitted it at interview received a D-minus course grade. The student government's written objection was rejected by the professor. No appeal outcome is reported. The case was raised at the National Assembly education committee's audit on 16 October 2026, where the university president said the AI guidelines needed to be supplemented and revised.

What remains unknown

  • Which AI tools the students used.
  • The exact dates within the first semester of 2026 when the assignments were submitted and the penalties imposed.
  • Whether any student appealed or whether the university reviewed the penalties after the student government's objection.
  • Whether any student who did not use AI was penalised, as the student government suggested might have happened.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The professor said the penalised students used AI to complete coding assignments in a course whose syllabus banned generative AI; he found code he and his teaching assistants could not understand and students could not explain, entering the assignment into AI produced similar code, and all 36 students admitted the AI use. The students' exchanges with generative AI produced the submitted code, and the penalties are the professor's response to that use. The AI tools are not named.

6 claims: 6 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported According to the course syllabus as reported by JoongAng Ilbo and Hankyoreh, a fourth-year computer engineering course on computer networking at Seoul National University in the first semester of 2026 stated that all course activities would be conducted without generative AI; the assignments required coding.

Causal attribution. Both outlets quote the same syllabus notice; one documentary origin, so reported.

  • joongang.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '컴퓨터공학부 4학년 학생을 대상으로 하는 이 강의는 컴퓨터 네트워크의 원칙과 구현·운영 원리를 다루는 수업으로 과제를 푸는 데 코딩이 필요했던 것으로 전해졌다.'; '모든 수업 활동에서 생성형 AI를 활용하지 않고 진행한다'
  • hani.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '이 수업은 애초 ‘모든 수업 활동에서 생성형 인공지능을 활용하지 않는다’는 공지를 내걸었다.'
Reported According to an SNU official and the professor, 36 of the 62 students enrolled in the course were penalised in their grades for using AI on assignments.

Causal attribution. The university's and the professor's account; the outlets do not show independent access to the grade records, so reported.

  • joongang.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '30일 서울대 관계자에 따르면 지난 1학기 서울대 공대 컴퓨터공학부의 한 전공과목에서 수강생 62명 중 절반이 넘는 36명이 AI를 과제에 사용해 성적에 불이익을 받았다.'
  • yna.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '30일 연합뉴스 취재를 종합하면 서울대 공대 컴퓨터공학부의 한 전공과목에서 지난 1학기 수강생 62명 중 절반이 넘는 36명이 AI를 과제에 사용한 것으로 드러났다.'
  • koreajoongangdaily.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Thirty-six of the 62 students enrolled in a fourth-year computer engineering course during the first semester of the 2026 academic year were penalized for using AI to complete their assignments'
Reported According to JoongAng Ilbo, the professor gave zero marks on the affected assignments to 25 students who disclosed their AI use voluntarily and a D-minus grade for the whole course to 11 students who admitted it only when interviewed at the end of the semester.

Causal attribution. The professor's account in one reporting chain (Korean original and its English version).

  • joongang.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '박 교수는 AI 사용을 자진 신고한 학생 25명에 대해 해당 과제에 0점을 부여했다.'; '신고하지 않았다가 면담에서 AI를 사용한 사실을 시인한 11명에 대해서는 과목 성적 D-가 주어졌다.'
  • koreajoongangdaily.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'He gave the 11 students who only later confessed to using AI during their meeting a final grade of D minus for the entire course.'
Reported The professor said some suspected submissions contained code that neither he nor the teaching assistants could understand and that students could not explain; according to JoongAng, entering the same assignment into AI produced code similar to students' answers; the professor said all 36 penalised students admitted using AI.

Causal attribution. The professor's own statements (interview and course notice); one actor, so reported. The AI tools used are not named.

  • joongang.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '박 교수는 “AI 사용이 의심되는 과제에선 교수와 조교가 이해하지 못하는 코드가 포함됐고 학생이 이를 설명하지 못한 경우가 있었다”고 했다.'; '같은 과제를 AI에게 입력했을 때 학생의 답변과 유사한 코드가 만들어지기도 했다고 한다.'; '“적발된 36명 모두 과제에 AI를 사용한 사실을 시인했다”고 밝혔다.'
  • yna.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '"처분된 학생들은 전원 본인이 인정한 경우"라며'
Reported The computer engineering student government sent the professor a written objection saying the criteria for judging AI use were unclear, that students who did not use AI might have been wrongly penalised, and that students who answered honestly were penalised while others who denied use may not have been; the professor rejected the objection.

Causal attribution. Counter-evidence from the student government, relayed by two outlets; reported.

  • joongang.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '학생회는 최근 AI 사용 여부를 판별하는 기준이 불명확하다는 내용을 담은 학생 의견서를 교수에 전달했다.'; '사람과 AI 답변이 비슷한 경우 AI를 쓰지 않은 학생도 AI를 썼다고 오인돼 감점됐을 수 있다는 취지'
  • hani.co.kr(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '“솔직하게 답변한 학생은 불이익을 받고, 실제로 (생성형 인공지능을) 사용했지만 이를 부인하거나 적발되지 않은 학생은 불이익을 받지 않았을 가능성이 있어 공정하지 않다”는 취지의 의견서를 냈다고 한다.'; '“죄지은 사람 모두가 잡히지 않았다고 죄를 지은 사람을 처벌하는 것이 불공정하다라는 주장은 도저히 받아들일 수 없다”고 했다.'
Reported At the National Assembly education committee's audit of Seoul National University on 16 October 2026, a lawmaker said the university's AI guidelines were being rendered ineffective, citing incidents including the engineering course; the university president said the guidelines needed to be supplemented and revised.

Causal attribution. Statements at a public parliamentary audit as reported by one outlet.

  • newspim.com(opens in new tab) supports · Korean
    '지난 1학기 공대 컴퓨터공학부의 한 전공과목에서는 수강생 62명 중 36명이 사전에 금지된 AI를 과제에 사용해 성적상 불이익을 받았다.'; '"가이드라인을 좀 더 보완하고 수정해야 할 부분이 있다고 생각한다"'; '안 의원은 교양과목과 공대에서 발생한 부정행위를 언급하며 "AI 가이드라인을 제시했음에도 불구하고 상당히 무력화되고 있는 양상"이라고 지적했다.'

Sources

5 sources inspected, from 4 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. JoongAng Ilbo exclusive published 30 July 2026, 11:13 KST, citing an SNU official and an interview with the course professor. Applies to s1.

Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. Yonhap report sent 30 July 2026, 14:29 KST ('연합뉴스 취재를 종합하면'), quoting the professor's notice to students. The underlying actor (the professor) is the same as in s1, so claims stay reported. Applies to s2.

Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. Hankyoreh follow-up published 3 August 2026, describing the student government's written objection and quoting the professor. Applies to s3.

Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. Newspim report of the National Assembly education committee audit of Seoul National University on 16 October 2026 (published 17:10 KST). Applies to s4.

Read in English on 2026-10-21 (HTTP 200). Korea JoongAng Daily's English version of the s1 report, published 30 July 2026; its footer says it was translated with the help of generative AI tools and edited by the newsroom. Same reporting chain as s1. Applies to s5.

Event countries: South Korea. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The course was taught at Seoul National University in Seoul, South Korea, as stated in all reports. Students' nationalities and residences are not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-21: Published as a sanction for prohibited AI use: Seoul National University's professor and an SNU official say 36 of 62 students in a computer engineering course that banned generative AI admitted using AI on coding assignments and received zero marks or a D-minus grade; the student government's objection and the October 2026 parliamentary audit are recorded. No student is identified.

People described

36 students in a fourth-year computer engineering course at Seoul National University who received zero marks on assignments or a D-minus course grade after, according to the professor, admitting banned AI use

People reported harmed in this case

36 people

36 AI participants · 0 other people harmed

36 students: the number an SNU official and the professor say were penalised (25 with zero marks on affected assignments, 11 with a D-minus course grade), all of whom admitted AI use according to the professor. The other 26 students in the course are not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#academic-integrity#generative-ai#coding-assignments#grade-penalty#consequential-response#korea

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Seoul National University professor penalised 36 of 62 computer engineering students who, he says, admitted using banned generative AI on assignments. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-seoul-national-university-computer-engineering-course-36-students-penalised-after-admitting-banned-ai-use

BibTeX

@misc{2026_seoul_national_university_computer_engineering_course_36_students_penalised_after_admitting_banned_ai_use,
  title = {Seoul National University professor penalised 36 of 62 computer engineering students who, he says, admitted using banned generative AI on assignments},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-seoul-national-university-computer-engineering-course-36-students-penalised-after-admitting-banned-ai-use}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified AI coding tool (suspected)

Over half of a Purdue programming class dropped the course after the professor emailed 200-plus students alleging AI cheating; allegations later withdrawn

In April 2026 the professor teaching CS 240, a programming course at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, emailed more than 200 students in the class alleging that he had caught them cheating on assignments with AI tools, according to the Lafayette Journal & Courier. The email gave the students a form on which to admit or deny AI use on each assignment and warned that failure to respond would result in an F for the course and an unfavourable letter to the dean of students. It was sent on the deadline for dropping a class, and more than half of the class unenrolled. A student quoted by the newspaper said the main objection was that he had not said which assignments were flagged or how they were detected. After a weekend of attention on social media and a class discussion called by the department, it was announced that the allegations of cheating and AI use so far in the semester were dropped and that anyone could re-enrol. The professor said he would keep using his AI detection tool. No source describes what that detection method was, and how many of the accused had used AI is not known.

Low Claude

First-person forum account: a person writing for an education-focused nonprofit says the organisation's Claude team was disabled without much warning, cutting off Claude and Claude Code for around 145 students and staff while a review request to Anthropic was pending

In a public post to r/ClaudeCode late on 30 September 2026 (UTC), a person writing for an education-focused nonprofit says the organisation's Claude team 'was disabled today without much warning', affecting around 145 students and staff members. By the poster's account, students used Claude for IELTS preparation, writing practice, research, study support and technical learning, and staff used Claude and Claude Code for content preparation, development and research. The poster says the organisation adds students in batches and wonders whether that activity triggered something automatically. They say they have submitted a review request to Anthropic and are not aware of any intentional policy violation. In a reply they say direct messages to three people went unanswered. Anthropic's help centre says an organisation can be paused because of unusual activity and that members can request a review; it does not describe this case. Whether an automated system made the decision is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

High Unidentified image tool

Indonesian university reverses suspensions of students affected by alleged AI-image abuse

Indonesian reporting describes allegations that a student made sexual images of other students with AI. A university initially suspended six affected students, then revoked the sanctions after protests. The image-abuse allegations remain attributed.

Medium Unidentified AI writing tool

Leiden law student's thesis invalidated and exams barred over references he says an AI tool distorted or invented; Council of State annuls fraud sanction

A law student at Leiden University used a generative AI tool to spell-check his bachelor thesis and to check and order its reference list. Seven of the thesis's footnote references (one of them appearing twice, out of 36 footnotes with references) were wrong in the final version; according to his explanation, the tool had distorted some of them, for example with wrong years or author initials, and invented others. On 29 January 2026 the faculty's exam board declared the thesis invalid and excluded him until 28 January 2027 from the thesis track and every exam in the faculty's programmes, reasoning that the fictitious references indicated unauthorised use of generative AI and therefore fraud. The university's appeals board for examinations found in March 2026 that he had plausibly shown he used generative AI to prepare his reference list, which it called a permitted use, but held him responsible for the non-existent sources; the exam board then re-imposed the invalidation with an exclusion until 29 July 2026, and the appeals board upheld that in July. On 14 October 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Raad van State) found his explanation plausible, held that no more than carelessness had been shown, and annulled the sanction; the thesis must now be graded, and the examiner may take the incorrect references into account in the grade.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents