[1] The elements for the State's liability for non-exercise of the police officer's emergency relief right

[2] The case rejecting a judicial police officer's failure to conduct an investigation and a claim for state compensation filed by a tenant who was killed by the tenant who is a mentally ill person on the ground that he/she did not exercise his/her right of emergency relief

[1] The police officer's right to take measures such as emergency relief is generally delegated to a reasonable discretion based on a professional judgment of the police officer. However, if, in light of the purpose and purpose of granting the police officer's right to take measures under specific circumstances, if such non-exercise is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the specific circumstances, the State is liable to compensate for the damage inflicted upon the police officer, provided that such non-exercise constitutes an act in violation of the law and satisfies other requirements under the State Compensation Act.

[2] The case rejecting a judicial police officer's non-permanent investigation and a claim for state compensation filed for non-exercise of right to relief on the ground that the police officer's request for designation of a person to be protected under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, in case where it is difficult to view that there was an objective risk prior to the act of murder, which was committed by a mentally ill person, based on a reasonable judgment of the situation where the crime included in the ordinary behavior of a mentally ill person is insignificant or that it cannot be seen as a crime, and where it is difficult to view that there was an objective risk prior to the act of murder, which is committed by a mentally ill person, even after reasonably judging the situation such as the situation at that time, the police officer took emergency relief measures under the provisions of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, such as punishing the mentally ill person, temporarily hospitalized person, and requesting the designation of a person to help him receive long-term hospitalization in a mental hospital upon the discharge of the mentally ill person.

[1] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 4 (1) and (7) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 196 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 4 (1) and (7) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 196

Shinjin-Jin et al. (Attorneys Sung-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na674 delivered on September 5, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of records and relevant evidence, the fact-finding by the court below is deemed correct, and there is no error of law by erroneous determination of evidence, such as the theory of litigation, or by mismisunderstanding facts by violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust sufficient deliberation. There is no reason to challenge this issue.

2. Since judicial police officers are responsible for conducting investigations under the direction of a public prosecutor, if a criminal charge is acknowledged, the investigation should commence regardless of whether the victim wishes to punish him/her, except in cases such as a crime subject to victim's complaint or a crime subject to non-compliance with intent

However, the police officers, along with the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes, are engaged in protecting people's lives, bodies, and property as well as in maintaining public peace and order, and are granted various authorities pursuant to the laws and regulations for the smooth performance of their duties. Thus, police officers performing specific duties may appropriately exercise their authority to take necessary measures in response to the circumstances and the prevention of crimes and the maintenance of public peace and order. As one of such authority, Article 4 (1) and (7) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (hereinafter "Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers") provides that police officers may take appropriate measures such as requesting emergency relief from public health and medical institutions, etc., or protecting police agencies within the limit of 24 hours, when they find a person who is obviously likely to cause harm to people's or others' life, body, and property due to mental disorder, etc., and there are reasonable grounds to believe that they need emergency relief.

Therefore, as determined by the court below in this case, although the police officers of the police box in charge of the above non-party 1 did not command the above non-party 1, or ordered the above non-party 1 to return to his house again by taking a measure of hospitalization at the mental hospital, it is minor in the crime included in the above non-party 1's behavior or other surrounding circumstances, and it is reasonable to judge that the above non-party 1 was in need of emergency relief because it fell under the provisions of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and it is hard to say that the above non-party 1 was in need of emergency relief. Thus, the police officers did not give lessons to the above non-party 1, but did not take emergency relief measures under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

In addition, the police officer's authority to take measures such as emergency relief is generally delegated at reasonable discretion based on the professional judgment of the police officer. However, in light of the purpose and purpose of granting the police officer the authority to take measures under specific circumstances, if such non-exercise is deemed considerably unreasonable, such non-exercise constitutes an act in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the State is liable to compensate for the damage inflicted upon the victim. However, measures such as long-term hospitalization at mental hospitals or long-term isolation from society as stipulated in the State Compensation Act exceed the police officer's authority under the above provision of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and there is no other reasonable method to take measures to prevent the possibility of committing the crime under the above non-party 1, considering the records, it is difficult to view that the above non-party 1 took measures to prevent the above non-party 1 from exercising his authority to prevent the victim's life before committing the crime of this case, and it is also difficult to view that the above non-party 1 had objectively known, or even after such other specific measures were taken by the police officer's within his jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, under the facts established by the court below, it is difficult to recognize that the above non-party 1 had grounds for detention or detention as stipulated by the law, or that the murder of this case was isolated from the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below on the business that the above non-party 1 was committed after having been sentenced to imprisonment or medical treatment and custody by the court. Thus, there is no causation between the above police officer's non-party 1 and the death of victims as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Cases that require a theory are no longer consistent with this case.

Ultimately, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the police officer’s duty to act, predictability, limits of discretion, and causal relationship, such as the duty to act by the police officer as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason

3. All appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)