'Arrest of suspect in "random assault"... Supreme Court rules "not an illegal arrest"'

Court: "Arresting a suspect in flagrante does not apply if it has significantly lost rationality"

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul.
[Photo by Supreme Court]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the police's arrest of a drunken person who committed a 'random assault' as a flagrante delicto was lawful.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cho Jae-yeon) announced on the 4th that it overturned the lower court's acquittal in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with insult and violation of the Minor Offenses Act (public intoxication disturbance at a government office), and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court.

In July 2019, Mr. A was prosecuted for verbally abusing and causing a disturbance to police officers at a police substation after being arrested for assaulting a stranger at a restaurant. The prosecution excluded the assault case, which had been settled with the victim, and only charged him for the disturbance at the police substation.

The trial focused on whether the police's arrest of Mr. A as a flagrante delicto was lawful despite no risk of flight or evidence tampering.

The first trial court judged the police arrest to be justified, considering that Mr. A's residence was far from the incident location and that the testimonies of the assault perpetrator and victim were contradictory, indicating a risk of flight. It sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 600,000 won for public intoxication disturbance, while ruling that the insult charge was unfounded as the social evaluation of the victim police officer was not damaged.

On the other hand, the appellate court pointed out that Mr. A did not refuse to cooperate with the investigation and that the police had secured his identity, deeming the arrest excessive. It acquitted Mr. A of the public intoxication disturbance charge as well. The appellate court stated, "It is insufficient to conclude that the responding officers seriously considered the necessity of arresting the defendant within their discretionary authority."

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. The appeal court found that the risk of flight or escape had not been resolved.

The bench stated, "Mr. A was verbally abusing and provoking the victim even when the police arrived," and ruled that "the police officers' arrest of the defendant as a flagrante delicto does not constitute a case of losing significant rationality."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.