[손해배상(기)][미간행]
In a case where police officers reported to 119 minutes immediately after he/she had controlled a suspect using firearms, and sent him/her to a hospital a suspect who was killed in excess of 119 emergency measures, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that, inasmuch as the police officers did not take basic emergency measures, such as 119 emergency measures from the time he/she reported to 119 to the time he/she arrived at the scene of the accident, there is room to view that the police officers were negligent in failing to perform their duty of relief and other necessary emergency measures for the suspect who was injured, without a concrete deliberation thereon, in light of the following:
Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 21 of the Regulations on the Guidelines for Use of Police Equipment, etc.
Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Accompanying, Attorneys Kim Sung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
Busan High Court Decision 2009Na5292 decided September 25, 2009
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the use of firearms by police officers
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's determination that the police officer's act of using a gun satisfies the requirements for the use of a gun is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the use of a gun by the police officer, as alleged in the ground of appeal.
The Supreme Court Decisions pointed out in the ground of appeal are different from this case, and they are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.
2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty of emergency measures against the injured by a police officer
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) comprehensively based on the evidence adopted by the police officer Nonparty 1 and 2: (b) reported Nonparty 3 to 119 immediately; (c) on November 6, 2007, 22:08 of the same day after the 119 first aid team reported to Nonparty 3; (d) arrived at the accident site at around 2:5 minutes from the accident site; and (e) the non-party 3 transferred to the hospital to the non-party 3; (e) on November 15:30 of 207, Non-party 3 could not promptly report and promptly report the fact that Non-party 3’s blood and meaturine (hereinafter “the non-party 3’s blood and meatphone”) died from low blood shock shock; and (e) Non-party 3’s act of detecting the above me to promptly respond to the me by reporting the death of the police officer.
However, such determination by the lower court is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
Article 21 of the Regulations on the Standards for Use of Police Equipment provides that “A police officer shall immediately take other necessary emergency measures where an injured person has occurred using police equipment.” According to the facts and records acknowledged by the lower court, Nonparty 3, due to the use of Nonparty 1’s firearms, suffered approximately 45cm on the left side of the police officer and approximately 60cm on the left side of the police officer’s stopbuck (the left side of the stopbuck) at approximately 0.8cm in diameter, and two (42cm on the left side of the stopbuck and approximately 60cm high level): The police officer continued to have arrived at the above 100 square meters on the front of the stop stop of the stop stop and the first stop of the stop stop of the stop stop of Nonparty 1, the first stop of the stop stop of Nonparty 2, and the first stop of the stop of Nonparty 1, 3,500 square meters on the day of their arrival, and the first stop of Nonparty 2, 196.
If so, the court below denied the defendant's responsibility by taking account of the circumstances in which the above police officers should have deliberated specifically on whether they violated the above police officers' duty of relief and other necessary emergency measures against the non-party 3. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty of emergency measures for the injured by the police officers.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)