[Exclusive] "No Problems With On-Site Response to Intoxicated Person"...Four Police Officers and Firefighters All Acquitted in Death Case

[Financial News] Police officers and firefighters who were indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death after a woman died while they were restraining her as she went on a drunken rampage and attempted self-harm were all acquitted in a citizen-participation trial. The ruling has drawn attention to how far police and firefighters can be held criminally responsible for their responses in urgent situations, particularly because it contrasts with a previous case in which a firefighter was convicted after injuring an intoxicated person while restraining them.
According to legal sources on the 3rd, the Criminal Division 4 of Changwon District Court, presided over by Judge Oh Dae-seok, acquitted all four defendants, including police officers and firefighters, who had been indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death. The case was heard as a citizen-participation trial, and all seven jurors unanimously returned not-guilty verdicts.
The incident occurred in the early hours of August 26, 2022. Police were dispatched after receiving a report that an intoxicated woman was lying on the street. When officers tried to wake her and send her home, she hurled abuse at them and assaulted the officers. She was arrested in the act on suspicion of obstructing the execution of official duties.
Even after her arrest, the woman resisted by repeatedly striking her head hard against the concrete ground. She then said, "So I have to bite my tongue and die, then," and actually attempted to bite her tongue. One officer trying to stop her was bitten on the finger and suffered bleeding. To prevent further self-harm, police initially placed an electronic whistle in her mouth temporarily, then put a towel provided by a convenience-store employee into her mouth.
Firefighters dispatched in response to a request for joint assistance handed the police officers gauze and suggested replacing the towel with it. The officer responded that it would be better to keep the towel in place. The firefighters then held the towel at the police officers' request, but when the woman was suspected of suffering cardiac arrest, they removed it and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and used an automated external defibrillator (AED). Her pulse returned and she was taken to a hospital, but she ultimately died.

The central issues at trial were whether the defendants had been professionally negligent by failing to remove the towel from the woman's mouth in time and by failing to detect signs of abnormality promptly.
YK Law Firm, which represented the firefighters in this case, emphasized that the firefighters were not medical professionals and therefore could not reasonably be held to the same level of judgment and response expected of specialist medical personnel. It also argued that, in principle, emergency treatment requires safety at the scene to be secured first. However, because the woman continued to act violently and attempt self-harm, the scene was not effectively safe, limiting the emergency measures the firefighters could take.
YK Law Firm called an emergency medical guidance physician from Geoje Fire Station as a witness to support its argument that the circumstances at the scene made the firefighters' response unavoidable.
The witness explained that even if the towel used to prevent the woman from biting her tongue had been removed or replaced with something else, she could have bitten her tongue again in an instant. Thus, either choice involved risks. The witness also said it was difficult to accurately assess cyanosis at the dark nighttime scene and that cyanosis was not a direct indicator of when cardiac arrest had occurred.
The witness reportedly also testified based on field experience that people who appear to have calmed down may suddenly attack medical personnel again. The witness further suggested that, in the long term, police officers and firefighters should be provided with tools to prevent self-harm and that relevant response manuals should be revised.
After considering the relevant evidence and the opinions of medical experts, the court ruled that it was difficult to conclude that the defendants' breach of their professional duty of care had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It therefore acquitted all of them.

The ruling contrasts with a previous citizen-participation trial in which a firefighter was held criminally responsible after injuring an intoxicated person while restraining them.
In 2019, Jeonju District Court convicted an emergency responder of causing injury after the responder injured a patient who was intoxicated, verbally abusive, and threatening while restraining the patient. The injuries included a nasal bone fracture requiring approximately six weeks of treatment, and the court imposed a fine of 2 million won. At the time, five of the seven jurors found the defendant guilty, while two found the defendant not guilty.
The emergency responder argued that the conduct constituted a justifiable act or self-defense because it was carried out in response to the victim's rampage. However, the court found that although the victim had used severe profanity, the victim had not continuously used violence or engaged in conduct that posed a serious threat to people nearby.
In particular, the court determined that the conduct did not qualify as a justifiable act or self-defense because the emergency responder had pushed the victim into the bed of a truck and pinned the victim down for about 20 seconds, then grabbed the back of the victim's neck and knocked the victim to the ground, causing injury.
The two cases cannot be regarded as directly precedential because the charges and specific facts differ. The issue in the 2019 case was whether the emergency responder's physical restraint of the victim, which caused injury, constituted the crime of causing injury. In the present case, the issue was whether the police officers and firefighters were professionally negligent in the death that occurred while they were restraining and assisting a victim who was attempting self-harm.
Nevertheless, both cases addressed how far police and firefighters can be held criminally responsible for their on-site responses to intoxicated and violent individuals. Although the present case resulted in a serious death, a key factor in determining criminal responsibility was whether the defendants recognized the victim's danger at the scene and could have taken other measures.
Jung Min-wook, an attorney at YK Law Firm who represented the firefighters in this case, emphasized, "If the police officers and firefighters had been found guilty of professional negligence resulting in death in this citizen-participation trial, it could have led to passive responses in the field, and the public might have borne the full consequences. This acquittal can serve as a driving force for police officers and firefighters to actively protect the lives and safety of the public."
[email protected] Yoo Seon-jun Reporter