Police Officer Who Shot to Subdue Rampaging Fierce Dog, Injuring Bystander, Also Found 'Not Guilty' in Appeal Trial

"Considering Aggressiveness of Dangerous Dogs and Urgency of the Situation"

A police officer who shot a gun to subdue a dangerous dog running without a leash and injured a passerby was acquitted again in the appellate court following the first trial.

On the 27th, the 9th Criminal Appeals Division of Suwon District Court dismissed the prosecution's appeal against police officer A on charges of professional negligence causing injury, citing factual errors and misinterpretation of the law, and upheld the original verdict. The first trial acquitted A.

The appellate court stated the reason for dismissing the appeal, saying, "Although the defendant appears to have failed to exercise the utmost duty of care in this case, considering the dog's aggression and threat at the time, the failure of the taser gun attempt, the urgency of the situation, the victim's walking direction, and foreseeability, it is difficult to find a breach of duty of care that would impose criminal liability on the defendant."

Earlier, the first trial court said, "At the time, the dangerous dog continued its attack even after being hit by the taser gun, creating an urgent situation where people were at risk of injury or death," and added, "Shooting in a situation where public safety was threatened is not considered an act exceeding the discretion of a police officer."

A was charged with firing a bullet at a medium-sized dog breed, a Pit Bull Terrier, running without a leash on a street in Pyeongtaek-si, Gyeonggi Province, on March 26, 2020, and seriously injuring a passerby who was hit by a stray bullet. Pit Bull Terriers, along with Tosa dogs, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and Rottweilers, are designated as dangerous dogs under the Animal Protection Act.

At the time, the Pit Bull Terrier was biting a woman and her pet dog during a walk and continued to rampage even after being hit by a taser gun fired by the police.

The police investigating the case decided not to prosecute A, considering his actions as 'emergency self-defense,' but after the injured passerby filed an objection, the prosecution conducted supplementary investigations and charged A, judging that firing a gun without measures such as citizen control in a non-urgent situation constituted negligence.