Among them, the part against the defendant as to the property damage of the plaintiff C and D shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. As to the assertion in the grounds of appeal as to whether to recognize liability for damages, the police officers, along with prevention, suppression, and investigation of the crime, perform duties to protect the lives, bodies, and property of the people, and maintain public peace and order, and have several powers 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 performance of their duties, police officers, who perform specific duties, may appropriately exercise their authority and take necessary measures in response to all circumstances. In general, such authority is delegated to police officers’ reasonable discretion based on their professional judgment. However, in light of the purport and purpose of granting authority to police officers, if it is deemed that the police officers’ failure to exercise their authority and take necessary measures is clearly unreasonable, such non-exercise of authority constitutes a violation of official duties, and thus is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da5482, May 8, 1998). If public officials’ duty imposed on public officials merely for public interest, or if it is deemed that there is an incidental causal causal causal relation between public officials or an internal norm or duty to protect the safety and interests.