(영문) 부산지방법원 2009.10.8.선고 2008가단120275 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from April 9, 2008 to October 8, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 20% is borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from April 9, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10-1 to 4, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 11, the testimony of this court for the sending point of the foreign exchange bank, the fact inquiry results of this court for the sending point of the foreign exchange bank, and the whole purport of the argument of the plaintiff's principal.

가. ▩ 새마을금고 직원으로 금융업무를 담당하던 원고는 2008. 3. 11.경 자신의 전화로 보이스피싱 사기 범죄(피해자에게 전화를 하여 금융기관 등의 종사자라고 속이고 특정 계좌에 돈을 입금하게 하여 이를 편취하는 수법의 사기 범죄를 말한다. 이하 같다.)를 시도하는 연락을 받고, 범인이 돈을 입금하라고 알려준 외환은행 및 기업은행의 예금계좌에 대하여 즉시 해당 은행에 통보한 후 공문으로 해당 계좌가 보이스피싱 의심 계좌에 해당한다는 이유로 지급정지를 요청하였다.

B. (1) On April 4, 2008, thisC2, which was the deposit owner of a bank bank deposit account (hereinafter “the instant illegal account”) for which the Plaintiff requested the suspension of payment, visited the branch office of the foreign exchange bank No. 1,000 am to terminate its own account. At least 11:24 on the same day, the bank’s employee name and the person whose name and the person whose name and the person whose name were not paid the instant illegal account was confirmed to be suspended from payment due to the Bophishing suspicion account.

② Upon receipt of the report above 112, the head of the Sungdong Police Station Sung-gu, Seoul, the Sungdong Police Station Park 112 sent out immediately to the branches of the Foreign Exchange Bank and listened to the statements made by thisC2, and confirmed the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s name, workplace, and workplace contact address requesting the suspension of payment of the instant illegal account from the person who was absent from the name of the staff members of the Foreign Exchange Bank No. 13

③ The Plaintiff, in a telephone call with this C1, tried to commit the singishing fraud, stated that the Plaintiff requested the relevant bank to suspend payment after hearing from the offender the instant illegal account.

④ On the other hand, thisC2 stated that thisC1 had only opened and transferred a passbook to a buyer of a passbook, and that he did not participate in the singishing fraud. On the other hand, thisC1 decided that this C2 was suspected of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the illegal transactions in the passbook, and that this C2 was handed over this C2 to the singular Team belonging to the Seoul Gangseo-dong Seoul Metropolitan Police Station 4 Team in the form of voluntary Dong-dong, around 13:00 on the same day, and then prepared a voluntary report on the above contents. On April 4, 2008, this C2 investigated this C2 on April 4, 2008, and this C2 determined that this C2 did not take part in the singishing fraud crime, and that this C2 did not take part in the singishing fraud crime, and then returned it to this C2, and made the buyer of the passbook to appear with all the particulars of the passbook opened in the same month.

라. 이C2는 2008. 4. 8. 다시 서울강동경찰서에 출석하여 추가로 조사를 받았는데, 서C은 이 사건 부정계좌에 보이스피싱 사기 범죄의 피해자들 돈으로 보이는 498만 원이 송금되어 있는 것을 확인하고 이C2에게 위 돈을 피해자들에게 반환하라고 말하였다. 이에 이C2가 서C에게 이 사건 부정계좌에 입금되어 있는 돈을 반환하는 방법을 묻자 이 사건 부정계좌의 지급정지를 요청한 금융기관에 가서 피해자를 알아내고 지급정지를 해지한 다음 피해자에게 돈을 반환하면 된다고 하면서 원고의 직장인 ▩ 새마을금고와 원고의 성명 및 직장전화번호를 알려주었다.

E. At around 10:09 on April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff sought the status of handling the case under the title "related cases to the arrest of a suspect of sexual scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam. scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam. However, the above civil petition was treated after around 11th of the

F. Meanwhile, on April 8, 2008, this C2 asked the Plaintiff, who was investigated by the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station, and called the Plaintiff’s workplace telephone number, and called the Plaintiff as the deposit owner of the instant illegal account, and asked the victims of the method of returning the money deposited in the said account. The Plaintiff asked thisC2 whether he was aware of his name and the workplace telephone number, and the Defendant asked this C2 was investigated by the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station and asked him to the police officer.

G. On April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff respondeded to the fact that the Plaintiff sent his personal information to C2 by phone calls to west, and submitted a petition to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the National Human Rights Commission of Korea on the following day. On the 11st of the same month, articles related to the press were published on the press, and on April 14, 2008, DaC3, such as west, requested the Plaintiff to withdraw the petition by finding the Plaintiff from Busan around 24:00 on April 14, 2008.

H. This C2 was originally designated and notified to an investigative agency. After undergoing two-time investigations at the Seoul Gangseo Police Station, it was transferred to the Seoul Nowon Police Station to be investigated, and continued to be investigated due to a lot of charges of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and a suspicion of Bosing fraud caused by many illegal transactions in passbooks. On May 30, 2008, it was sent to the prosecutor's office around May 30, 2008. On June 30, 2008, this C2 received a non-prosecution disposition due to "not guilty of having been suspected of having committed a fraudulent act."

I. The "Financial Accident Payment Suspension System" and "Disaster Prevention System" were operated under the Convention between Banks in order to cope with Bophish frauds. However, the "Financial Accident Payment Suspension System" means a system that prevents a financial institution from illegal transactions (such as opening of a bank account, issuing credit cards, lending, etc.) by a third party if the victim or remittance bank requests a bank from which the funds were deposited to suspend payment of damage funds by telephone in case of a transfer of funds to a telephone financial fraud. In the event of a request for suspension of payment by telephone, the counter bank shall first demand a written request for payment suspension within 24 hours after the execution of payment suspension measures. The "Personal Information No-Investment Prevention System" means a system that prevents a financial institution from illegal transactions (such as opening of a bank account, issuance of credit cards, lending, etc.) by a third party if its resident registration number, name, etc.

2. Relevant provisions;

Rules on the Protection and Compensation of Informants, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by the National Police Agency Directive No. 563, Aug. 25, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on the Protection and Compensation of Informants, etc. of Specific Crimes") shall apply.

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these Rules is to promote the promotion of criminal reports by guaranteeing the safety and confidentiality of persons, etc. who have reported crimes, and by paying appropriate compensation to persons who have committed crimes.

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in these Rules shall be as follows:

1. The term "person who has reported a crime" means a person who has reported a criminal fact and a person suspected of a crime to a police official;

2. The term "person who is killed in the line of duty" means a person who, before an offender of a crime prescribed in Article 5 is arrested, reports the whereabouts of a police officer or a person who arrests an offender, a person who arrests an offender and delivers him/her to a police officer, and a person who has contributed significantly to such arrest by actively cooperating with the police officer in arresting the

3. The term "offenders, etc. of crimes" means those who have filed a crime and those who have contributed to arresting criminals, including foreigners;

(1) When any person who has reported a crime, etc. is injured or is likely to injure life or body of the suspect or any other person, police officers may, ex officio or upon request by such person, take measures necessary for the personal safety of such person, etc.

(2) The kinds of personal safety measures under paragraph (1) shall be as follows:

1. Protection at a specific facility for a specified period;

3. Escorting a witness or witness to appear;

4. Periodic patrol over the residence of reporters, etc. of crimes.

5. Other measures deemed necessary for personal safety.

Article 4 (Prohibition of Divulgence of Confidential Information, etc. to Reporters, etc.)

(2) No police officer shall provide a third person with any fact or photograph that enables the person, etc. who has reported a crime, in accordance with his/her name, age, address, occupation, appearance, etc.: Provided, That this shall not apply where such person, etc. has consented thereto.

A person who contributes to arresting an offender of any of the following crimes may be rewarded: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where the person obligated to report is legally obligated to report:

1. A violation of Articles 119, 164, 166 (1), 167 (1), 168 (1), 177, 178, 179 (1), 186, 187, 188, 194, 207, 258, and 259 of the Criminal Act;

Where the amount of damage out of each of the crimes referred to in Articles 329 through 332 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 362 and 363 of the Criminal Act is five million won or more.

2. The former Rules on Criminal Investigation (amended by Ordinance of the National Police Agency No. 526, Jul. 22, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Rules on Criminal Investigation") concerning arrest, confinement, death, etc. under Article 281 of the Criminal Act;

Article 1(Purpose)The purpose of these Rules is to prescribe the mind that police officers who are judicial police officers (hereinafter referred to as "police officers") shall observe in investigating crimes, the method and procedure of investigation, and other necessary matters concerning investigation.

Article 10-2 (Considerations for Victims, etc.)

(1) In conducting investigation, a crime victim or his/her relatives (hereinafter referred to as "victim, etc.") shall understand the depth of the crime victim or his/her relatives, and respect the character thereof.

(2) In conducting an investigation by a victim, etc., a place appropriate for the investigation shall be used and caution shall be given to the other victims, etc. so as not to feel uneasy or bullying

Article 10-3 (Notice to Victims, etc.)

(1) In conducting criminal investigations, an outline of criminal procedures shall be explained to the victim, etc., and a notice of the progress and progress of proceedings of the case and other matters helpful for the rescue of the victim, etc. shall be given: Provided, That this shall not apply when there is any possibility of impeding the investigation or trial or unfairly infringing the honor and rights of persons concerned of the case (hereinafter

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was called to attempted to commit the singishing fraud and requested the suspension of payment of the instant illegal account to cooperate in the arrest and investigation of the criminal. Since the Plaintiff’s personal information he/she became aware of in the course of performing his/her duties was informed to the deposit holders of the instant illegal account and neglected the protection of the criminal reporter, etc., the Defendant, a police officer, is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the Defendant’s unlawful act in the course of performing his

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since it has been proved that thisC2 was not related to the Bosing Fraud and only suspected of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to illegal transactions in passbooks, and therefore, in order to promptly recover from the victims, the plaintiff knew that he was merely a person in charge of payment suspension of financial institutions and provided his name, workplace, and telephone number to the victim, the plaintiff did not commit an official illegal act.

B. Determination

In the state compensation liability, a harmful act by a public official must be a violation of the law, and the above law violates the law as well as the respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of power, and trust and good faith, and it widely lacks objective justification. Thus, if a police officer violated the limits of the law or sound reasoning that should be observed as a police officer in conducting criminal investigation, it constitutes a violation of the law.

In performing his duties, a police officer has a duty to respect the freedom and rights of the people in accordance with the Constitution and Acts, and to protect the honor and privacy of a crime victim or a witness, etc., and, in particular, a victim or a witness, etc. who actively cooperates in the arrest and investigation of an offender is obliged to take more careful consideration so that they do not cause any other damage.

In addition, even though the former rules on the protection and compensation of persons reporting crimes, etc., the former rules on criminal investigation, etc., and the former rules on criminal investigation, etc., are merely administrative rules which are not binding externally, if the duty standard of police officers, as stipulated in each of the above rules, is not merely for the general public’s abstract interest or for the purpose of protecting the specific safety and interests of individual members of society as a whole or incidental to the public order within administrative agencies, but for the purpose of protecting the order inside the administrative agencies, it may be the basis for determining whether police officers violated the legal or logical limits in conducting criminal investigations. Thus, all of the above rules on persons reporting crimes, etc. or victims, etc., which are listed above, are primarily for the protection of the specific safety and interests of the victims

In light of the above legal principles, it appears that the Plaintiff’s request for suspension of payment of illegal accounts to the bank outside of the Republic of Korea was made as part of conducting business based on “the suspension of payment of funds for financial accidents,” etc. However, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the financial institution, did not take any such measures but attempted to commit fraud. ② Although the Plaintiff did not directly report to the investigation agency, the Plaintiff attempted to terminate the illegal accounts of this case, which were suspended from payment upon the Plaintiff’s request, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disclosure of confidential information about the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the crime committed on April 4, 208, and thus, the Plaintiff could not be seen as having been informed of the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the victim’s personal information and confidential information about the crime.

(1) Determination that the money deposited in the illegal account of this case is the money of the victims of fraud

In light of the empirical rule or logical rule, it is difficult for the police officer in charge of the investigation to accurately investigate the reasons why the plaintiff requested the suspension of payment and to confirm who is the victim of the fraud. Although it was for prompt recovery of damage, it is hard for the police officer in charge of the investigation to easily inform thisC2 of the plaintiff's personal information and to make the victim known, and there was no inevitable reason to do so. Thus, in light of the fact that the police officer in charge of the investigation did not properly inform the plaintiff of the circumstance that the police officer in charge of the investigation should obtain the plaintiff's consent, the plaintiff's personal information should be notified, and other inevitable circumstances and progress of the investigation, etc., or that the plaintiff's request for the suspension of payment was made, and that the bank owner of the illegal account of this case used for the fraud of this case for the purpose of recovery of damage caused to the plaintiff or the victim of the fraud. However, even if it was for prompt recovery of damage, it is reasonable for the police officer in charge of the investigation to inform the plaintiff's personal information or the limit of criminal investigation by negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the violation of the laws and regulations by negligence because the defendant, a police officer, is responsible for performing his duties. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is with merit.

4. Scope of damages.

우선, 원고는 경찰관의 위와 같은 직무상 위법행위로 인하여 자신의 신분이 노출됨으로써 범인들로부터 보복을 당할 것이 두려웠고, 또한 서C 등이 원고를 찾아와 새벽까지 위 진정을 철회해 달라고 강요하는 바람에 정상적인 근무를 할 수가 없어 당시 근무하던 & 새마을금고에서 사직하였다고 하면서 피고가 이로 인한 재산상 손해16,050,522원을 배상할 것을 주장하므로 살피건대, 서C 등이 2008. 4. 14. 늦은 시각에 원고를 찾아와 진정을 철회해 줄 것을 부탁한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 갑 제5호증의 기재에 의할 때 원고가 이 사건 이후인 2008. 5. 13. 원래 근무하던 ▩ 새마을금고에서 사직한 사실도 인정되나, 나아가 위에서 본 경찰관의 직무상 위법행위나 서C 등이 진정을 철회해 줄 것을 부탁한 행위와 원고가 직장을 그만둔 사실 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 볼 만한 아무런 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장은 나머지 점에 관하여 살필 필요 없이 이유 없다.

Then, the plaintiff argued that the defendant should be recognized as consolation money of 33,949,478 won (at least 30,000,000 won) as consolation money for a police officer's occupational misconduct, and that the defendant should claim compensation for the above amount of 50,000,000 won after deducting 16,50,522 won from the claimed amount of 50,000 won.

According to the various circumstances revealed in the oral argument of this case, even though the plaintiff was allowed to attempt to commit singing fraud and did not directly inflict any damage on himself, it can be deemed that the plaintiff reported it to a financial institution, and even if not directly reported to an investigation agency, it could have anticipated arrest and investigation by an investigation agency. In fact, since this C2 of the illegal account was discovered due to the request for suspension of payment by the police officer, and the plaintiff made a true statement through a criminal investigation-related telephone from the police officer, it seems that the plaintiff, along with his own contribution, caused unstable fear that he would be summoned to receive retaliation from the offender due to exposure to his status. The plaintiff's situation at that time is well-known as seen in the above facts, and that the plaintiff did not have an obligation to protect the victim's life and body, as seen above, since it was about 00 days in writing on the website bulletin board of the National Police Agency, and that the defendant did not have an obligation to know about the above mental distress and mental distress of the police officer, even if he did not have a considerable mental distress or mental distress.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 10,00,000 as well as damages for delay set forth in the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 9, 2008 to October 8, 2009, which is the date of the judgment of this case where it is recognized that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiff from April 9, 2008 to October 8, 2009, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it