【Holding】
In a case where Defendants A and B are police officers and Defendants C and D are first-class emergency medical technicians serving as firefighters (119 emergency medical services personnel), and where, when the victim E (female, aged 41), who had been arrested in the act for obstruction of the performance of official duties while heavily intoxicated, attempted to harm herself by biting her own tongue while handcuffed on both hands, Defendants A and B subdued E by pushing a towel into E's mouth, and Defendants C and D, who were dispatched to the scene upon a joint response request (request for emergency medical services) from the police, did not immediately remove the towel, the Defendants were indicted on the charge of occupational negligence resulting in death on the facts that the Defendants jointly caused E's death by asphyxiation due to airway obstruction, and the case proceeded as a citizen participation trial at the Defendants' request, the Court held that the occupational negligence of the Defendants was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, and, respecting the jury's unanimous verdict of not guilty, acquitted all of the Defendants
【Summary of Decision】
This is a case where Defendants A and B are police officers and Defendants C and D are first-class emergency medical technicians serving as firefighters (119 emergency medical services personnel), and where, when the victim E (female, aged 41), who had been arrested in the act for obstruction of the performance of official duties while heavily intoxicated, attempted to harm herself by biting her own tongue while handcuffed on both hands, Defendants A and B subdued E by pushing a towel (approximately 80 cm wide and 40 cm long) into E's mouth, and Defendants C and D, who were dispatched to the scene upon a joint response request (request for emergency medical services) from the police, did not immediately remove the towel, and the Defendants were indicted on the charge of occupational negligence resulting in death on the facts that the Defendants jointly caused E's death by asphyxiation due to airway obstruction, and the case proceeded as a citizen participation trial at the Defendants' request.
① As to Defendants A and B, the police officers: in light of the series of events from their dispatch to the scene until they stopped E's self-harm with the towel, E was so intoxicated that normal responses or conversation could hardly be expected, showed strong hostility toward and violently resisted Defendants A and B, who were urging and assisting her to return home, did not hesitate not only to directly assault Defendants A and B but also to engage in conduct that could cause serious harm to her own life and body, such as striking her head on the ground or biting her tongue, and continued to resist fiercely even after the arrest, so that her mental and psychological state was highly unstable, and the situation was urgent in that serious harm to E's own life and body could suddenly occur at any time due to unexpected dangerous conduct, such as E biting her own tongue, as well as harm to the police officers or citizens; when E, beyond their expectations, attempted self-harm such as biting her own tongue, Defendants A and B appear to have judged that it was necessary first to stop it in order to secure the safety of E's life and body, and to have chosen to put a towel in E's mouth as a means of swiftly and effectively stopping E's sudden self-harm, and it is difficult to assess such judgment or measures by Defendants A and B as a neglect of the duty of care required of police officers dispatched to the scene in the sudden situation of self-harm when dealing with an intoxicated person on site, or as a manifest deviation from the discretion conferred on police officers; and even if E's resistance had subsided somewhat, that circumstance alone does not permit the conclusion that the possibility of E's self-harm had disappeared or diminished, and it is difficult to assess that Defendants A and B had an occupational duty of care to understand the fact that E had virtually stopped resisting as a meaningful signal that a risk such as cardiac arrest had arisen or that the measures to stop the self-harm should be changed to less restrictive ones. Considering these and all other circumstances comprehensively, it is insufficient to find that Defendants A and B neglected their occupational duty of care, such as by failing to foresee even the risk of death by asphyxiation and to take the necessary measures to avoid it, in the course of being dispatched to the scene and stopping E's self-harm in the situation at the time. ② As to Defendants C and D, the firefighters: they arrived at the scene later than the police officers, had less information about the scene than the police officers, the police officers were already controlling the scene by having E bite on a towel in her mouth, and there appear to have been no other abnormal signs from which E's asphyxiation or cardiac arrest could be inferred; therefore, even though Defendants C and D, immediately after their dispatch, recognized that a towel had been put in E's mouth but did not take any measures to change the situation from the perspective of emergency relief, considering the urgency, seriousness, and peculiarity of the situation at the scene at the time, it is difficult to regard their initial response in accordance with the instructions or direction of Defendants A and B as unlawful for manifestly deviating from the scope of reasonable discretion of firefighters dispatched to the scene, or as a neglect of the duty of care required at the scene; and it is difficult to accurately determine whether E stopped resisting after Defendants A and B put the towel in E's mouth because of E's exhaustion or because of breathing difficulty due to airway obstruction, and the general opinion of the medical experts is that, in light of the peculiarity, urgency, etc. of the scene at the time, it would have been difficult for Defendants C and D to respond immediately at the scene and remove the towel. Considering these and all other circumstances comprehensively, it is insufficient to find that Defendants C and D neglected their occupational duty of care, such as by failing to foresee the risk of E's death by asphyxiation and to take the necessary measures to avoid it, in being dispatched to the scene in the situation at the time. Accordingly, the Court held that the occupational negligence of the Defendants was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, and, respecting the unanimous verdict of not guilty by the seven jurors, acquitted all of the Defendants.
【Referenced Statutes】
Articles 30 and 268 of the Criminal Act; Articles 5, 13(1), and 46(1), (2), and (5) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (the “Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials Act”, 국민참여재판법); Articles 307, 308, and 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act
(Source: Changwon District Court Decision 2026GoHap1, September 1, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)
2026. 10. 19. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail