The case affirming the judgment below which offsets the victim's negligence by 70% on the ground that the fire extinguishing of the police officer's gun exceeds the permitted scope of use of gun as stipulated in Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which offsets the victim's negligence by 70% on the ground that the fire extinguishing of the police officer's gun exceeds the permitted scope of use of gun under Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Articles 2 and 8 of the State Compensation Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act (Article 396)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Gowonok et al. and six others

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 93Na12220 delivered on April 22, 1994

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

The defendant litigant's grounds of appeal are examined.

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 is a considerable reason to arrest an offender, prevent escape, protect his or another person's life or body, suppress resistance against the performance of official duties, but it is evident that the police officer may inflict harm on another person only when there is a considerable reason to use a weapon to the necessary extent only when the use of a weapon constitutes self-defense and an emergency evacuation under the Criminal Act, or when there is a considerable reason to believe that there is no other means to arrest, prevent escape, or suppress resistance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da1913, Sept. 10, 191; 93Da9163, Jul. 27, 1993).

원심은, 그 거시증거에 의하여, 망 소외 1이 1992.10.6. 21:00경 인천에서 소외 김남일 소유의 트레일러와 트렉터를 절취하여 트렉터로 트레일러를 견인, 운전하여 부산방면으로 가다가 평택시 유천동 소재 유천검문소에 이르러 당시 검문중이던 경기지방경찰청 평택경찰서 소속 순경인 소외 2로부터 정지신호를 받고 검문을 피하기 위하여 속도를 늦추면서 정지하는 척 하다가 갑자기 속력을 내어 도주한 사실, 이에 소외 2가 동료 순경 소외 서정원과 함께 승용차로 5분 가량 추격하자 위 망인은 위 트렉터를 도로에 세워두고 도로 밑 언덕에 숨어 있다가 소외 2 및 서정원에 의하여 발각되어 일단 체포되었으나 위 서정원이 수갑을 가지러 승용차로 되돌아가는 순간 자신을 붙잡고 있던 소외 2의 앞가슴을 손으로 밀어 땅에 쓰러뜨린 다음 도주한 사실, 그러자 소외 2는 망 소외 1을 100여 미터 정도 추격하면서 정지하라고 소리치며 휴대중이던 권총을 사용하여 공포탄 2발을 발사한 후 다시 실탄 1발을 공중을 향하여 발사하였으나 망 소외 1이 계속 도주하므로 다시 그의 몸쪽을 향하여 실탄 1발을 발사한 결과 위 탄환이 도로의 땅바닥에 맞아 튕기면서 망 소외 1의 후두부에 맞아 동인은 이로 인한 다발성 두개골골절, 뇌출혈 등으로 같은 달 10. 11:45경 사망한 사실을 인정하였다.

In light of the facts established by the court below, it is found that the non-party 2 had a possibility of sufficiently suppressing the above deceased by continuously exposing the deceased without any arms or deadly weapons in light of the contents and degree of resistance at the time when the above deceased resisted and escaped in order to escape arrest. Thus, the non-party 2 did not choose such a method, and the act of the non-party 2 projecting the loaded ammunition with the body of the above deceased does not constitute an unlawful act beyond the permitted scope of the use of firearms under Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and the judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

On the other hand, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's determination of the amount of compensation shall take into account the fault of the deceased non-party 1, but its determination shall be justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of comparative negligence, such as theory of lawsuit. The argument

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)