The case holding that police officers' use of police firearms is lawful, in case where police officers ordered the driver of a vehicle with a theft number plate to stop several times and warning shootings, but the driver escaped and caused injuries on the buckbucks, by launching balls to arrest him/her.

In a case where a police officer ordered the driver of a vehicle with a theft number plate several times to stop and shoot the warning shooting, but the driver escaped so that he can arrest him, resulting in injury on the part of the buckbucks, the case holding that the use of a police officer's gun is lawful on the ground that it is reasonable for the police officer to have determined that the driver's operation of the vehicle with a theft number plate is used as a means of crime other than a planned and organized crime as a result of a planned and organized crime, and that it is generally used as a means of escape after the crime, and that the driver runs away beyond the central line of the main road of the city in the city and runs back beyond the central line of the city and runs away from the scene of warning and shooting, and that the police officer could inflict serious harm on others without arresting the driver.

Article 10-4(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da57956 Decided September 13, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 959)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Gahap9808 Decided April 13, 2006

November 2, 2006

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all claims filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and 1 and 2 pertaining to the revoked part are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Appointeds 1 and 2.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the appointed party 7,234,597 won, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") 23,001,969 won, and 5,00,000 won to the appointed party 2, and 5,000 won with 5% per annum from September 12, 2002 to the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 6-1 through 6-3, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 6-1 through 13, the whole purport of the arguments as a result of physical examination of the chief of the Central University Hospital in the first instance court, and the whole purport of the arguments.

A. On May 18, 2002, the Selection Party 1 cut off the front and rear number plate of the Seoul (automobile registration number omitted) model, which was parked at the 4th 205 front parking lot located in the Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul (Seoul) distributiondong, and cut off the EXE car at the 420-5 movable underground parking lot located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (automobile registration number omitted) and cut off the EXE car at 420-5 movable underground parking lot and operated by replacing the EXE car number plate by the above Seoul (automobile registration number omitted) number plate.

B. At around 21:50 on September 12, 2002, the police officer assistant, Kim English, and the police officer of the Hanyang Police Station affiliated with the Hanyang Police Station, inquired the number of the above vehicle driven by the designated person 1 while carrying out the 112 patrol duty in front of the new bank located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and instructed the designated person 1 to stop the vehicle on the right side of the road to check that it is a vehicle with a theft number plate attached.

C. However, the Selection 1 did not comply with the inspection, and the vehicle was set at the back glass of the said vehicle, and the vehicle was damaged, but the Selection 1 went away to the left without stopping the designated person. The Selection 1 set a siren and carried out the vehicle above the patrol lane at the front of the pressure-gu 2nd Dong Office of the arm’s length without stopping the vehicle. The Selection 1 turned to the front of the pressure-gu 2nd office of the arm’s length. When the speed was turned to the signal, the Selection 1 driven to the central line and driven to the reverse direction, and driven to the direction 95-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Kim English continued to put up the vehicle by using a loudspeaker, and led to the Selection 1.

D. From that point of view, the designatedr 1 found the fry case and hysl and hysl and hysl and tried to rein the future after stopping the car, which was set up on the way to stop the above modern apartment, and then tried to re-enter the car. Although Kim English opened the 3/8 blank hysl and hysl in the patrol car, he continued to drive the car in the future, but even though he tried to continue to drive the vehicle in the future, he could no longer drive the vehicle in front of the hysl column in the hyslst column.

마. 그 순간 김영문이 선정자 1쪽으로 다가가며 “꼼짝마! 손들어, 손들어, 손들어”라고 소리치며 지시에 따를 것을 명하였으나 선정자 1은 이에 불응하였고, 이에 김영문이 다시 “그 자리에 엎드려”라고 3회 반복하자 선정자 1은 바닥에 엎드리는 척 하면서 갑자기 위 현대아파트 95동 뒤 노상으로 뛰어 도주하기 시작했다.

F. The Kim Yong-mun, a driver driving away from Appointers 1 and “stampers,” but the Appointors 1, who attempted to flee in the middle due to warning accidents, emitted one ball in the air with the warning accidents, and repeatedly warns 1 of the Selection who does not stop, “hacks if her,” but 1 of the Selections continued to flee, she launched one ball gun toward the left left left part of the Selection, and arrested Selection who opened one ball gun on the left part of the Selection.

G. The Selection 1 suffered from the upper left-hand side by facing the ball cartridges as above, and thereby lost the labor ability of 26% remaining and 26% of the left side side by the following disorder: the Selection 1 was accompanied by the nutrition disorder such as the left side, etc.

H. The Plaintiff is the father of the Appointor 1, and the Appointor 2, and the Appointor 1’s mother.

2. Judgment on the assertion

A. The plaintiff and the remaining designated parties

The plaintiff and the designated parties asserted that the police officer Kim English was liable to compensate the plaintiff and the appointed party 2 for the damages suffered by the plaintiff and the appointed party 1, who were not in possession of arms and who continued to flee only without resisting the police officer, and the designated party 1 was faced with the left buckbucks and lost the labor ability of 26% due to the subsequent disability caused by such act. Such act in Kim English constitutes an illegal act beyond the permitted scope of use of firearms under Article 10-4 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. Thus, the defendant asserted that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff and the appointed party 1 for the damages suffered by the plaintiff and the designated party 2, who are the 1 and 1 family members due to such an act in Kim English, 97,567,160 won (the lost import damage + KRW 77,567,160,000 + KRW 230,000,000,00 won and delay damages paid to the plaintiff.

(b) Markets:

(1) Article 10-4(1) of the former Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (amended by Act No. 7247 of Dec. 23, 2004) provides for the requirements for the use of arms by police officers as follows.

A police officer may use a weapon within necessary limits at his/her reasonable discretion of the situation, if there are reasonable grounds deemed necessary for arresting and preventing a criminal from being arrested or attempting to do so, the protection of his/her or another person's life or body, the suppression of resistance to the performance of official duties: Provided, That he/she shall not harm another person, except in cases falling under legitimate self-defense and an emergency evacuation prescribed by the Criminal Act, or in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a person who has committed or has sufficient grounds to be suspected to have committed a crime punishable by death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment with or without prison labor for at least three years resists the performance of duties by a police officer, intends to flee, or a third person resists a police officer to assist the person to flee, and there is considerable reason to believe that there is no means other than the use of a weapon to prevent such act or arrest him/her;

2. Where, in cases of an arrest and detention warrant or execution of a search and seizure warrant, the principal resists the performance of duties by police officers, or intends to flee, or a third party resists a police officer to assist the person to flee, and there is considerable reason to believe that there is no means other than the use of a weapon to prevent such act or arrest him/her;

3. Where an offender or required person possesses a dangerous object, such as a weapon, deadly weapon, etc., and continues to resist the order of speculation or an order of resistance from the police officers three or more times, and there is considerable reason to believe that there is no means other than the use of a weapon to prevent or arrest such object;

4. Where an armed espionage refuses to comply with an order to surrender issued by a police officer in conducting a counter-espionage operation.

(2) In other words, a police officer may use a weapon for the purpose of arresting and preventing a criminal from exercising his/her duty, protecting his/her or another person's life and body, and suppressing resistance to the performance of official duties. However, even in this case, when there are reasonable grounds deemed necessary to achieve the purpose of a weapon, a police officer's use of a weapon shall be determined based on whether it is reasonable under the generally accepted social norms in consideration of the type and nature of a crime, the severity of legal interests, the urgency of danger and injury, the resistance of resistance, the number of criminals and police officers, the kind of weapon, the type of weapon, the mode of use of a weapon, the surrounding circumstances, etc. In particular, the police officer's use of a gun with a high risk of causing harm to people should be determined more strictly (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da57956, May 13, 2004, etc.).

(3) In accordance with the above criteria, it is deemed as to whether the act of the Kim English to launch ball cartridges toward 1 designated persons in the instant case exceeds the permissible scope of police officers’ use of arms.

① The police officer Kim English, who was driven by the designated person 1, was aware that the vehicle is a stolen number plate attachment vehicle (in the same case, most of the vehicles themselves are stolen vehicles) and the designated person 1 attempted to flee. Since larceny is subject to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six years or a fine not exceeding ten million won, it is possible to use a weapon within a reasonable and reasonable scope pursuant to Article 10-4(1)1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers in the above case.

② Even when Kim English continued to fall back while disregarding the situation in which it entered India at night, in the process, entered India, violated the signal, as well as violated the signal, and led to a reverse direction by breaking the central line of the main road in a congested city, and attempted to proceed over the obstacles in the way of passing back again despite the attack of blank shot, despite the attack of blank shot, and even at the same time, the order of suspension and the second degree of warning was neglected and continued to escape. Furthermore, in the case of Kim English at the same time, it is inevitable to expect that there is a concern that a criminal would cause serious danger and injury to the life and body of ordinary citizens, and thus, it is necessary to arrest the person in an urgent situation to protect another person's life and body even if he/she was arrested.

③ On the other hand, in the course of patrol with Kim English and a police officer, the designated person 1 did not comply with the order of the designated person 1 to move his vehicle while the patrol was directed to the designated person 1 to check the designated person 1, and the designated person 1 did not look back immediately into the designated person 1 of the patrol vehicle without carrying the national house into the patrol vehicle. During this process, the designated person 1 was in an imminent situation where he could not take care of the person 1 of the designated person 1 of the patrol vehicle because he could not request any other police officer to communicate with the police officer or arrest the designated person 1 of the designated person by entering into the national house. At the latest, at night, he could not help other surrounding persons in the patrol complex to arrest the person 1 of the designated person.

④ In addition, although the Selection 1 could no longer proceed with the vehicle above, he was set off from the vehicle above, he did not easily resist the vehicle, and escaped from the vehicle, and the Kim English did not follow the Selection 1, and even if he did not follow the Selection 1, he did not follow the Selection 1, and it is practically impossible for the Selection 1 (the Selection 1 was 22 years old at that time, and the Kim English was 48 years old) to catch up according to the Selection 1 (the Selection 1 was 22 years old at that time, and the Selection 1 was 48 years old) to arrest the Selection 1, it seems that there was no way to stop escape only by stopping the part of the Selection 1's body that does not pose any danger to life, and it was found that the Selection 1's bridge part of the ball 1's bridge was turned out.

In full view of the above circumstances, it shall be deemed that there was a considerable reason to deem that the Appointer 1, who is suspected to have committed larceny, has no means other than the use of a weapon, such as a weapon, to arrest the Appointer 1 in the situation of escape despite several orders of suspension and warning shootings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da13488, Apr. 2, 2009). Moreover, it cannot be said that the Appointer 1 merely runs away from the center line of the main road and does not affect the aforementioned judgment, but rather runs away from the thefter who is not a scarcity or violent crime. Rather, taking a vehicle with a theft number plate attached, it is general to use it as a means of committing another serious crime or an escape after such crime. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the Appointer 1 runs away beyond the center line of the main road and runs away from the center, regardless of the warning and attack attack, and it cannot be said that it does not achieve the purpose of 20307Da204.

Therefore, the criteria for the use of a gun, such as a gun, prescribed in the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers or the Supreme Court precedents, cannot be deemed as an unlawful act beyond the permitted scope of the police officer's use of a gun. Thus, the plaintiff and the remaining designated persons' arguments based on the premise that the act of Kim English committed a tort in the course of his duties are without merit without any need to examine the remaining points of view (it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on June 21, 2005, and this is three years after the date of the above accident, and thus, the plaintiffs' right

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff and the remaining designated parties shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all of the claims by the plaintiff and the remaining designated parties shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)