[1] Criteria to determine whether police officers meet the requirements for use of arms

[2] The case holding that the police officer's use of a police officer's gun is unlawful beyond the permissible scope under social norms in light of all the circumstances, in case where one of the police officers, who was on board a 50cc small-sized Obababa, stolen one of 5 to 16 years old-age c, escaped, resisting the police officer's inspection, and the police officer's failure to comply with the police officer's request for arrest

[1] A police officer may use a weapon to arrest or escape an offender, to protect his/her or another person's life and body, to suppress resistance to the performance of official duties. However, even in this case, when there are reasonable grounds deemed necessary to achieve the purpose, a police officer's use of a weapon shall be determined by taking into account the type and nature of a crime, degree of legal interests, urgency of legal interests, degree of danger and injury, resistance, number of criminals and police officers, type of weapon, mode of use of a weapon, surrounding circumstances, etc., and in particular, a police officer's use of a gun with a high risk of harm to people should be determined more strictly by taking into account the type and nature of a crime, degree of legal interests, degree of danger and injury, degree of danger and injury, degree of danger and injury, type of a weapon, mode of use of a weapon, surrounding circumstances, etc.

[2] The case holding that the police officer's use of a police officer's gun is unlawful beyond the permissible scope under social norms, in light of all the circumstances, in case where one of the police officers, who launched a ball gun with the wheels of the Batob for the purpose of arrest, but was on board the Matoba, went away, following the police officer's failure to comply with the police officer's inspection, and the police officer's failure to comply with the police officer's inspection

[1] Article 11 (see current Article 10-4) of the former Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (amended by Act No. 5988 of May 24, 1999) Article 11 (see current Article 10-4) of the former Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (amended by Act No. 5988 of May 24, 199) Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da63445 delivered on March 23, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 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

Suwon District Court Decision 2003Na2304 delivered on October 1, 2003

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A police officer may use a weapon to arrest an offender, to prevent an escape, to protect his or another person's life and body, to suppress resistance to the performance of official duties. However, even in this case, when there are reasonable grounds deemed necessary for accomplishing the purpose, a weapon shall be used within necessary limits after reasonably assessing the situation (Article 11 of the former Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (amended by Act No. 5988 of May 24, 1999). Whether a police officer's use of a weapon satisfies these requirements shall be determined depending on whether the use of a weapon is deemed reasonable under social norms by taking into account the type and nature of the crime, severity of legal interests, degree of legal interests, urgency of danger and injury, degree of danger and injury, number of criminals and police officers, type of weapon, mode of use of a weapon, surrounding circumstances, etc. In particular, the requirement shall be determined more strictly in the use of a gun with a high risk of harm to people (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da634455, Mar. 23, 1999).

On October 25, 198, the court below found that the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 did not comply with the above legal principles regarding the flight of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 (the above 3 persons are students, temporary employees, or non-party 1)'s act of cutting off the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1's act of cutting off the plaintiff 1's gun or cutting off the plaintiff 1's gun 1 and the non-party 3's act of cutting off the plaintiff 1's gun 1, which was non-party 1 and the non-party 1's act of cutting off the above 5's gun 1,000 and the non-party 1's act of cutting off the 5's gun 1,000-1's gun 1,000's gun 1,000,000's 7's gun 1,000's gun 1,000's 1,000.

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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)