1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on liability for damages

The duty of police officers is to protect the lives, bodies and property of the people, and maintain public peace and order, along with the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes. Since various authorities are granted under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the Criminal Procedure Act, etc. to facilitate the performance of such duties, police officers who perform specific duties may exercise various authorities assigned to them in response to all circumstances and take necessary measures appropriately. Such authorities are generally delegated to police officers’ professional judgment based on reasonable discretion. However, in cases where it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable for police officers to exercise their authority to take necessary measures according to specific circumstances in light of the purport and purpose of granting authority to police officers, non-exercise of such authority is deemed to violate official duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da5482, May 8, 1998; 2003Da4909, Sept. 23, 2004).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the non-party's 1 and the non-party's 2 father's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's cell phone. The police presumed that the suspect's White son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that the police officers belonging to the Defendant were jointly and severally liable with the Nonparty for compensation for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and their bereaved family members due to the Nonparty’s negligence in the performance of their duties, on the grounds that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the seriousness and imminent degree of damage inflicted on the victim, the police officer’s initial action and duty of care required in such circumstance, the degree of the police officer’s occurrence of additional crimes, and the likelihood of predicting the occurrence of the additional crimes, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

2. As to the grounds of appeal by both parties on limitation of liability

In a case where the State is liable for damages to a victim due to a police officer’s negligence in the performance of duties by the police officer, the State may limit the amount of damages in light of the principle of fair compensation system, such as the content and nature of the police officer’s duty of care required for the performance of duties in question, the background of the police officer’s violation of the duty of care and the manner of violation of the duty of care, and the objective circumstances involved in the occurrence and expansion of damages to the victim, or the degree thereof, etc. Furthermore, the fact-finding of the grounds for mitigation of liability or the ratio thereof belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is recognized that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7947,

In light of the above legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding on the grounds for mitigation of liability of the Defendant or the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s ratio of mitigation of liability cannot be deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal,

Supreme Court Decision 98Da31691 delivered on October 20, 1998 cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiffs is different from this case and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)