(a) The case holding that it is beyond the limits of the use of firearms in the course of performing his/her duties, where police officers called out to control the riot in a hospital to cause the knife of a victim who fighted against him/her to die;

B. Requirements of self-defense

(a) The case holding that even if the police officer, etc. was able to commit suicide by cutting a large-scale glass window installed at a hospital while drinking at night and breaking the knife to knife the knife to knife the knife to two police officers called the victim's knife to knife the knife, it appears that there was a time and supplementary means to suppress the knife's resistance by using gas guns and police knife that the police officer, etc. launched or possessed by the above police officer, and that there was no need to reduce the danger and injury by launching the knife to the body, even if there was no inevitable need to launch the gun, it was found that the police officer's act of using the knife to knife the knife by launching the knife to the upper part of the victim's chest below the chest, exceeded the bounds of using the gun provided

(b) In the case of self-defense, the principle of supplement to the act of defense is not necessarily applicable, but is a reasonable act that does not violate social ethics, as an act within the extent necessary for defense.

a.B.Article 11(a) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Section 2 of the State Compensation Act, Section 20 of the Criminal Code, Section 761(1) of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 69Da888 decided Sep. 23, 1969 (No. 17(3))

Jeon-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na4937 delivered on May 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

It is clear in light of Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers that a police officer may use a weapon to the necessary extent, if there is a considerable reason to arrest and escape a criminal, protect his/her or another person's life and body, and suppress resistance to the performance of official duties. However, in the case of using a weapon, only if there is considerable reason to believe that there is no other means to arrest and escape or to prevent resistance (except in the case of carrying out a counter-espionage operation) and to the extent necessary (except in the case of carrying out a counter-espionage operation).

원심은 그 거시증거에 의하여 소외 망 서은석이 1989.12.5. 20:30경 술에 취한 상태에서 대전 중구 대흥 2동 532의 7 소재 변덕시 신경외과의원에 교통사고로 입원 중인 동인의 형인 소외 서용석을 문병하러 갔다가 입원실에 있던 과도를 들고 '우리 형 살려내라'고 고함을 치며 1층 복도에 있던 접수실 대형유리창문을 칼로 쳐 깨뜨리고 잠가놓은 원무과 문을 발로 차고 들어가 그곳에 있던 4명의 직원을 향해 자신의 복부에 칼을 대고 할복자살하겠다고 하며 '우리 형 살려내라', '원장 나와라'라는 등의 고함을 치며 난동을 부린 사실, 대전경찰서 명정로 파출소 소속 소외 1 순경은 칼빈소총 1정과 실탄 15발 까스총 1정, 경찰봉, 수갑 등을 휴대하고 소외 정상호 의경(위 정상호 의경은 당시 까스총 1정과 경찰봉 등을 휴대하고 있었다)과 같이 위 병원으로 출동하여 위 난동행위의 제압과 난동자의 체포업무에 임하게 되었는데, 당시의 상황은 위 서은석은 원무과로 들어가 칼을 들고 위와 같이 직원들을 위협하고 있었고 그가 깨뜨린 유리조각들이 복도바닥에 흩어져 있었으며 그가 유리를 깨뜨리면서 손에서 피를 흘린 관계로 복도바닥에 핏자국이 묻어 있었으므로, 소외 1 순경은 위와 같은 상황을 보고 위 서은석이 난동으로 인명피해가 있었던 것으로 판단하여 휴대하고 있던 칼빈소총에 실탄을 장진하고 위 정상호 의경과 같이 원무과 출입문앞으로 가서 위 서은석을 향해 칼을 버리고 나올 것을 명령한 사실, 그러나 위 서은석은 소외 1 순경 및 위 정상호 의경을 보자 '이 새끼들아 쏠태면 쏴라'하며 오른손에 칼을 들고 동인들 앞으로 다가섰고 이에 위협을 느낀 소외 1 순경은 총구를 위 서은석 앞으로 들이대고 다가오지 말 것을 명령하였으나 위 서은석은 계속 칼을 들고 소외 1 순경 등에게 다가가자 소외 1 순경과 정상호 의경은 함께 주춤주춤 복도를 따라 뒤로 밀리다가 약 11미터 정도 뒤로 밀려 복도끝부분에 이르게 되자, 더 이상 물러설 공간이 없음을 알고 위 총의 총구부분으로 위 서은석의 가슴을 밀어냈으나 동인이 그래도 계속 다가오자 소외 1 순경은 위 서은석 앞으로 들이댄 위 칼빈소총의 방아쇠를 당겨 1회 발사함으로써 총알이 위 서은석의 왼쪽가슴 아래부위를 관통하여 위 서은석에게 총기관통에 의한 횡경막파열, 간파열, 위장파열 등의 상해를 입혀 그후 사망케한 사실을 인정하였다.

In light of the facts established by the court below, even if Nonparty 1 et al. resisted to Nonparty 1 et al. with a knife and knife, it appears that there was time and supplementary means to suppress the resistance of the above deceased, using gas guns and police fels possessed by the normal knife during about 11 meters, or using a police knife, and that there was no time and supplementary means to suppress the resistance of the above deceased. In addition, even if it was not possible for Nonparty 1 et al. to use the gun as a gun to launch the knife, rather than the chest part, and there was a need to minimize the danger by launching the gun to the body part, which is not the chest part, and thus, it cannot be said that the use of the gun by Nonparty 1 et al. goes beyond the limits of the use of the gun under Article 11 of the Act

In self-defense, the principle of supplement does not necessarily apply to the act of defense, but it requires that the act within the extent necessary for defense is a reasonable act that does not violate social ethics. Thus, in light of the circumstances surrounding the use of firearms, such as the above explanation, the act of the non-party 1man does not constitute a reasonable act, and thus, it does not constitute self-defense.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)