(a) The case where it is deemed necessary to use arms under Article 7 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers does not fall under the same Act; and

(b) cannot be recognized as falling under the Act on Self-defense;

The police officer's request for voluntary movement while restraining two persons who fright to wear a fright in the street by drinking so that he/she could escape, put him/her to the end of his/her shooting, and refuse to do so. As such, the police officer's above use of arms cannot be deemed to constitute a case under Article 7 of the former Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (Act No. 298 of Dec. 14, 53), if a fright gun, which had not been equipped with a safety device for the fright to wear a fright to wear a fright gun, was launched and the police officer died.

Article 7 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 761 of the Civil Code, Article 21 of the Criminal Code

Kim Jong-seok et al.

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 68Na573 delivered on April 29, 1969

The appeals are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers;

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows. In other words, at around 10:40 p.m. on Apr. 6, 1968, the deceased non-party 1 met with the non-party 2, who was under the influence of alcohol and interfered with the traffic of the vehicle on the road of the Gangseo-gu Busan National Highway at around 10:40 p.m., at around 10:40 p.m., the non-party 1 demanded voluntary accompanying by preventing the non-party 3, who was a patrolman, who discovered this fact, but the non-party 1 demanded voluntary accompanying, but the non-party 3, who was a patrolman, was spacing with the ice gun in possession, threatening the ice gun, and the non-party 3 also refused accompanying, and the non-party 1 was deceased because the safety device, which did not have a safe relation with which the plaintiff tried to use the ice gun, was not in the relationship with the non-party 1.

Therefore, it is clear that the case in question does not fall under the case stipulated in Article 7 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and considering the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the court below erred in holding that the non-party 3 did not have been negligent in failing to perform his duty of care in relation to the accident that occurred due to the non-safety device as a person handling the firearms. Therefore, the court below did not err in holding that the non-party 3 did not have been negligent in performing his duty of care in relation to the accident that occurred due to the non-safety device. Therefore,

(2) As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney, since the facts as stated in the above (1) are acknowledged, it cannot be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the victim's non-party 1 in the accident of this case, and the victim's non-party 1 did not act on the part of the national highway, and the victim's non-party 1 did not interfere with the traffic of the vehicle and interfere with the traffic of the vehicle and demanded voluntary accompanying of the vehicle without any special circumstances, and the non-party 3's legitimate execution of official duties is not denied, and the accident occurred when the police officer attempted to pay for the firearms in possession of the police officer, it cannot be concluded that there was an error in the judgment of the court below that 1.2 million won of the damages amount of the defendant's liability for the defendant's compensation among the damages amount of 3056,205 won in the judgment of the court below, and according to the court below's decision that the defendant's above act cannot be deemed as legitimate self-defense as stated in the theory of lawsuit, the court below did not err.

Therefore, each of the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be employed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)