Police Officer (CG)▶ Click here for a larger view
A police officer who was disciplined following arresting a drunken drunkard who swears and pushes filed a lawsuit to revoke the National Human Rights Commission’s decision to recommend disciplinary action, but the court did not accept it. This is because there is no ‘interest of litigation’.
The 2nd division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Min Yu-suk) announced on the 18th that it had confirmed the lower court that dismissed Mr. A’s claim in the appeals court for the cancellation of the disciplinary recommendation decision made by Police Officer A once morest the National Human Rights Commission of Korea.
According to the court, on June 29, 2019, at around 5:00 am, Mr. A received a report that Mr. B, a drunken man, was asleep in the parking lot of the apartment, and was dispatched with fellow police officers.
Police officers arrested B as a current offender on charges of obstructing the execution of official duties when drunk B, swearing, pushing and arguing. However, following analyzing closed circuit TV (CCTV) video, the prosecution disposes of non-indictment (no charges due to insufficient evidence).
Person B filed a complaint with the Human Rights Committee, saying that “human rights were violated during the arrest process”, and the Human Rights Committee told the police chief in April of the following year, “The fact that human rights violations have been committed due to illegal arrests that do not meet the requirements for arrest are recognized.” He recommended that the police officers dispatched to the scene be disciplined.
At the time of the arrest, the Human Rights Commission judged that it is difficult to see that Mr. B, who reached out his hand toward the police officers, did not need to suppress it, and that there was a fear of running away or destroying evidence since he had already confirmed that he was a nearby resident with his ID.
According to the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, the chief of the police station gave a ‘no warning’ to Mr. A in June of that year. An unqualified warning is not an explicit disciplinary action such as a pay cut or reprimand, but it is a disposition that gives disadvantages such as the extinction of past awards and public services.
Person A filed an administrative litigation claiming that the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission for disciplinary action was unreasonable.
The first trial decided to cancel the disciplinary recommendation, saying, “It cannot be concluded that the arrest of Mr.
The court pointed out that the mere fact that Mr. B was not prosecuted by the prosecution did not justify his actions or make the arrest of a police officer illegal.
However, the second trial judged differently. As long as the warning has already been given and it has been confirmed because Mr. A did not go through a separate appeal procedure, the previous recommendation of the Human Rights Committee has exhausted the legal effect, so the effect is that there is no legal benefit for Mr. A to get by canceling the recommendation itself. .
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the second instance as it is, noting that there were no problems such as misunderstandings of the law.
[연합뉴스]
s ⓒ Yonhap News. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited
