[손해배상(기)][공1999.5.1.(81),744]
[1] The method of determining the requirements for police officers to use firearms
[2] The case holding that the police officer's use of a gun constitutes an unlawful act beyond the permissible scope under social norms, in case where the police officer, while tracking a suspect of theft of a vehicle that repeatedly threatens 40cc in length with a large knife of the knife of the knife and tracking the suspect of theft of the vehicle that escaped, launching ball cartridges at about 2 meters away from the suspect's body to escape, and caused the suspect to die in the face of his knife trade
[1] A police officer may use a weapon to arrest an offender, to prevent escape, to protect his or another person's life and body, to suppress resistance against the performance of official duties. However, even in this case, when there are reasonable grounds for deeming that it is necessary to attain the objective of the use of a weapon, the police officer's use of a weapon shall be within necessary limits after reasonably assessing the situation. Whether the use of a weapon by a police officer satisfies such requirements shall be determined by considering the type and nature of a crime, severity of legal interests, urgency of danger and injury, resistance, resistance, the number of criminals and police officers, the type of a weapon, the type of a weapon, the mode of use of a weapon, and surrounding circumstances. In particular, the requirements should be determined more strictly in the use of a weapon with a high risk of causing harm to people.
[2] The case holding that the police officer's use of a gun constitutes an illegal act beyond the permissible scope under social norms, in case where the police officer repeatedly threatened 40cm in length with a knife and traceed a suspect of theft of a vehicle in flight, and launched a ball gun at a distance of about 2 meters from the suspect's body toward the direction of the escape and caused the suspect to die in the face of knife trade
[1] Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers / [2] Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article
[2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da10084 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1767) Supreme Court Decision 91Da19913 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2524) Supreme Court Decision 93Da9163 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2404), Supreme Court Decision 94Da25896 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong194, 3243)
Plaintiff 1 and three others
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 98Na43627 delivered on November 25, 1998
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
A police officer may use a weapon to arrest an offender, to prevent an escape, to protect his/her or another person's life and body, to suppress resistance to the performance of official duties. However, even in this case, when there are reasonable grounds deemed necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose of a weapon, a police officer's use of a weapon shall be within necessary limits after reasonably assessing the situation (Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers). Whether the use of a weapon by a police officer satisfies these requirements shall be determined by considering the type and nature of a crime, the severity of legal interests in the crime, the urgency of damage, the urgency of danger and injury, the strength of resistance, the number of criminals and police officers, the type of a weapon, the type of a weapon, and the surrounding circumstances. In particular, the requirements should be determined more strictly in the use of a weapon with a large
On March 18, 197, the court below reported that the non-party 1 was illegally parked on the 102-way road of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council 57, 197. The non-party 2 was exposed to the number plates which are different from the vehicle number plates at the above place on the end of 20:0 on the same day. The above car was parked in the place where the non-party 2 was removed from the other car number plates, and then parked again with the other car number plates which the non-party 2 was cut off and then parked. The non-party 1 was able to get the non-party 2 to get out of the front knife, and immediately after the non-party 1 returned to the police box, the non-party 2 was able to get out of the front knife and then 20 meters away from the front knife, and then the non-party 2 was able to get out of the front knife.
In this regard, the fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
If the facts are identical to this, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to justifiable acts as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the measures of the court below to consider the ratio of the non-party 2's fault as 60% as 60% in determining the scope of the defendant's damages, and therefore, there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are dismissed.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)