[1] Requirements and limitations of "use of weapons" under Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers

[2] The case holding that the use of the firearms constitutes an illegal act beyond the permissible scope, in case where the police officer's refusal to comply with the order of suspension on the ground of signal violation and attempted to kill the passengers aboard the escapeed vehicle after warning them several times, and even if they launched blank cartridges, the use of the firearms constitutes an illegal act beyond the permissible scope

[1] In light of the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, a police officer may use a weapon to the necessary extent, if there are reasonable grounds to arrest an offender, prevent escape, protect his or another person's life, protect his or her body, and suppress resistance to the performance of official duties. However, it is obvious that a police officer may harm another person by using a weapon only to the necessary extent only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a weapon constitutes legitimate self-defense and an emergency evacuation as prescribed by the Criminal Act, or that there is no other means to arrest, prevent escape

[2] The case holding that in case where a police officer's refusal to comply with the order of suspension on the ground of a violation of signal and scambling the passengers aboard the escapeed vehicle with a distance from the body, due to various equipment, which had been occupied by the police officer, and the attacking the blanks occurred several times, and where the police officer continued to flee without resisting the police officer by attacking or threatening the police officer without carrying any dangerous weapon, such situation cannot be seen as constituting self-defense or emergency evacuation requirement under the Criminal Act, and it is difficult to view that the above death officer had a sufficient reason to suspect that the person committed a crime stipulated in Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, or committed a crime without using the police officer's order of suspension, and in light of the fact that the police officer continued to commit another act without using the gun and thus, it is hard to see that the police officer's act of spreading the gun by spreading the gun or continuing to capture it without any necessary device to force the police officer's use of the gun.

[1] Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers / [2] Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da63445 delivered on March 23, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 744) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da10084 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1767) Supreme Court Decision 91Da19913 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2524), Supreme Court Decision 93Da9163 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2404), Supreme Court Decision 94Da25896 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong194, 3243)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na15790 delivered on October 30, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, a police officer may use a weapon to the necessary extent when there are reasonable grounds to arrest an offender, prevent an escape, protect his or another person's life and body, and suppress resistance to the performance of official duties. However, it is evident that a police officer may inflict harm on another person by using a weapon only to the necessary extent only when it falls under self-defense and an emergency evacuation prescribed by the Criminal Act, or when there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is no other means to arrest, prevent escape, or suppress resistance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da25896, Nov. 8, 1994; 93Da9163, Jul. 27, 1993; 91Da1913, Sept. 10, 191).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 was unable to use the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's gun-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-s.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)