Police Chief: "To Boldly Protect the People, the 'Gyeongjik Act' Must Be Amended... At Least Minimal Legal Support"

Plans to Appeal National Compensation Ruling in 'Rear Handcuff Death' Case

Commissioner Kim Chang-ryong of the National Police Agency.

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Gwan-joo] Kim Chang-ryong, Commissioner of the National Police Agency, once again urged the swift passage of the amendment to the "Police Officer Duty Execution Act" (Gyeongjik Act), which reduces criminal liability for damages incurred during the legitimate execution of duties.

At a press briefing held on the 10th, regarding the plenary session of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee scheduled for that afternoon, Commissioner Kim stated, "During the previous discussion in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, some members expressed that the bill approved by the Public Administration and Security Committee was too broad, so a revision was made to clearly define the scope. I believe today's discussion will proceed along those lines."

Commissioner Kim emphasized that the amendment to the Gyeongjik Act is essential for on-site police officers to actively enforce the law in urgent situations. He said, "Hesitation to take bold measures to protect the public can create gaps in ensuring public safety and inevitably lead to a passive response. Therefore, this regulation must be passed at least as a minimal legal support."

Regarding the recent court ruling ordering compensation to the family of a mentally ill person who died after being restrained by the police with "back handcuffs" and unable to breathe, Commissioner Kim expressed the intention to appeal.

He explained, "While it is regrettable that the mentally ill person died during arrest and restraint, such incidents must never happen again. However, mentally ill individuals sometimes exhibit unpredictable dangerous behavior, and there have been frequent cases where police officers have died in the line of duty or faced the worst outcomes. In this case, the suspect resisted while wielding three weapons, which was a special situation, so the restraint may have been somewhat excessive." He added, "We fundamentally respect the court's ruling, but we plan to appeal to sufficiently explain the unpredictable behavior encountered in the field and the need to restrain it."