A Traffic Accident That Sparked a 5-Year Legal Battle Between Current and Former Police Officers [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

Former Police Officer Requests Additional Investigation into Traffic Accident Details
Current Officer Says, "Someone with 35 Years as a Patrol Officer Doesn't Know That?"
Former Officer Engaged in Civil and Criminal Lawsuits for 5 Years Since 'Baechigi' Incident

"You say you've been a police officer for 35 years, and you don't know that?" "Are you worried I might retaliate?" (Sergeant A)

On the afternoon of July 14, 2018, on a road in Chungju, Chungcheongbuk-do, a heated argument broke out between police officer A, who was dispatched from a nearby police station, and B, the husband of the driver of the vehicle involved in a traffic accident.

Officer A tried to close the case by stating that the truck, the offending vehicle, hit B’s car because of a "front tire puncture." On the other hand, B argued, "The accident happened because the truck suddenly changed lanes, and the puncture could have occurred after the impact when it hit the curb," requesting that the tire marks on the road be measured. B emphasized that "the circumstances of the accident cannot be conclusively determined," also highlighting his own 35 years of experience as a police officer.

Officer A refused, saying, "We will conduct the investigation." During this process, A used expressions such as 'sunsa' (a low-ranking police officer during the Japanese colonial period) and 'eop-eokkagi' (a slang term meaning unfairly reversing the roles of perpetrator and victim) toward B. When an enraged B protested by pushing his stomach forward, A mockingly said, "Why, does this remind you of old times? You seem to have learned strangely. You know a little, but only half-heartedly."

B was criminally prosecuted for obstructing official duties but was acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2020. The court ruled that "the act of pushing the stomach was merely a protest against the insulting language (such as 'sunsa') and did not amount to obstruction of official duties."

B launched a counterattack by posting a petition on the Blue House’s national petition site and providing information to the media. However, two complaints filed against A with the police were both dismissed. After being acquitted, B filed a lawsuit against A on 10 charges including false accusation, insult, defamation, and dereliction of duty, but the prosecution decided not to indict, stating "there is no evidence of wrongdoing by A."

Ultimately, in 2021, B filed a civil lawsuit seeking 50 million KRW in damages, claiming "mental suffering caused by A’s illegal acts." B’s side also argued in court that "after the first complaint led to an audit investigation, A, harboring resentment, contacted B, who was working at an elementary school, and threatened him by saying 'I will cut your throat' and 'Be careful, I will kill you.'"

According to the legal community on the 23rd, Judge Park Yong-geun of the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 32 ruled on the 15th in the first trial of B’s damage claim lawsuit that "A must pay 5 million KRW." The court recognized the statements A made to B during the phone call and acknowledged A’s liability for the threats.

However, other illegal acts claimed by B, such as false accusation and dereliction of duty by A, were not recognized. The court stated, "'Sunsa' is a rude expression that would offend B. However, A had also served as a police officer for about 30 years, and the remark was made impulsively during the traffic accident handling process," adding, "'Eop-eokkagi' was used by a police officer and cannot be seen as a derogatory term directed at B."

The court further noted, "At the time of the traffic accident, the driver of the offending vehicle admitted full fault and expressed willingness to compensate the damages through insurance," concluding that "measuring the tire marks was not necessary."

Additionally, the court said, "Due to B’s pushing during the argument, A, who had a bad back, may have suffered considerable shock," and "(Regarding B’s criminal case, in which he was acquitted) although A’s claims may have been somewhat exaggerated, it is difficult to conclude that B reported false facts subject to punishment for false accusation." All of A’s counterclaims against B seeking 10 million KRW in damages were dismissed.