[1] The requirements for a police officer's non-exercise of authority under Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers to constitute an illegal act

[2] The case recognizing the State's liability for damages on the ground that the police officer did not take measures to prevent the occurrence of danger under Article 5 of the Act on the Performance

[1] Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that a police officer may take measures under each of the following subparagraphs if a dangerous situation is likely to harm human life and body, or cause serious damage to property, and thus granting a police officer the authority to perform his/her duties at his/her discretion. However, in light of the purpose and purpose of granting such authority to a police officer, if it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable for a police officer to not take necessary measures according to specific circumstances to exercise such authority, the non-exercise of such authority is deemed to violate a police officer’s duty

[2] The case holding that the State is liable in a case where the police officer, while suppressing the demonstration of farmers and moving the Trackers left on the road during the demonstration process, leaving them alone without taking preventive measures such as moving them out of the road or installing safety signs on the rear side, leaving them alone as they are, and leaving them down, and the driver who was driving on the road at night tried to avoid the Track and suffered the injury caused by the Track in another Track.

[1] Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da21371 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3275) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da45927 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3406) Supreme Court Decision 97Da5482 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1588)

Jeong-hee et al. (Attorney Jeon Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 97Na5629 delivered on February 26, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. On December 24, 1993, the police officers belonging to the above police station, including Nonparty 1, who are the chief of Kim Jong-gu Police Station, moved the above 2 keys to the above 30th of the 1st of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 20th of the 193rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd.

2. Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that a police officer may take measures under each of the following subparagraphs if a dangerous situation is likely to inflict harm on human life and body, or cause serious damage to property, and thus granting a police officer the authority to perform his/her duties at his/her discretion. However, in light of the purport and purpose of granting such authority to a police officer, if it is deemed considerably unreasonable that a police officer does not exercise his/her authority and take necessary measures according to specific circumstances, the non-exercise of such authority constitutes a violation of his/her duty and thus illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da54482, May 8, 1998; 95Da45927, Oct. 25, 1996).

After recognizing the facts above, the court below found that the police officers, such as the non-party 1, etc., who withdrawn measures to restore the order and traffic of the road by suppressing the movement of farmers and moving one Tracker left on the road during the process of the demonstration out of the road, etc., are obligated to take measures to prevent the occurrence of danger as stipulated under Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, such as moving the remaining Tracker to outside of the road for the safety of road traffic, or installing safety signs at the back of the Tracker in order to prevent drilling accidents by other vehicles at night, even though the above Tracker cannot move without taking any preventive measures for the reason that it is unlawful to recognize the defendant's liability for damages as to the accident of this case, on the ground that it is unlawful to violate the duty of duty, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers and so on. Therefore, the ground of appeal as to this point is rejected.

3. In light of all the circumstances, including the relationship between the plaintiff Jong-hee and Kim Jin-J, the background of the above plaintiff's boarding, the purpose of operation, the cause and circumstances of the accident, etc., it is reasonable to determine that it is reasonable to reduce the degree of 20% from the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, and that the defendant did not wear a safety belt, etc., and that the court below did not recognize the above plaintiff's negligence as alleged by the defendant, such as the defendant's failure to wear a safety belt, is justified, and there is no error of law as alleged in the

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)