Is Punishment Possible for the 'Itaewon Disaster'?… Legal Community: "Unclear Responsible Party" vs "Police Negligence"

Difficult to Recognize Causality or Foreseeability with Death or Injury
Some Argue "Police Neglect of Duty or Negligent Homicide Charges May Apply"

On the 31st, officials from the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency Investigation Headquarters and the National Forensic Service are conducting an on-site investigation at the crush accident site in Itaewon, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy reporters Choi Seok-jin, legal affairs specialist, and Heo Kyung-jun] Who should be held legally responsible for the ‘Itaewon Halloween disaster’ that resulted in over 150 deaths?

For criminal liability to be established or for civil liability for damages due to tort to arise, intent or negligence is required. The legal community generally agrees that in this case, there was no event organizer bearing management responsibility, making it unclear who should bear such legal responsibility.

However, there are opinions that the police should be held accountable for dereliction of duty for failing to deploy sufficient personnel to control the crowd, despite the expectation of more than 100,000 people gathering.

On the 1st, Attorney A, a former chief prosecutor, said, “For example, if an accident occurs during a sports event held by a club or alumni association gathering on a playground, would the district office or police be held responsible?” He added, “There must be various security regulations in place for situations where large crowds gather. These would apply to national events or when requested by local governments. But in this case, it was not a national event, and the police deployment was likely just patrol-level to prevent possible unfortunate incidents on site.”

Attorney B, a former chief judge, also predicted, “Since the accident did not occur at a facility but happened while a large number of people were freely out on the streets, it seems difficult to hold legal responsibility.”

If the person who shouted “Push” from the upper alley and actually pushed people is identified, there is room to consider charges such as negligent homicide or assault causing death. The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency’s investigation headquarters, which is investigating the Itaewon disaster, is reconstructing the situation at the scene based on nearby closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage and videos taken during the accident, looking into suspicions that some citizens intentionally pushed others during the incident.

However, Attorney C said, “As can be seen from the footage, people at the top seemed to have difficulty accurately understanding the situation below. Even when 119 firefighters arrived, they thought they were fake because they were wearing Halloween costumes.” He continued, “If people below were caught in the middle, pressured, or fallen, and someone shouted ‘Push’ or actually pushed, that could be problematic. But if it was just a shout to push and move down because the crowd going up and down collided, it would be difficult to establish causation with death or injury.” Regarding the aggravated offense of assault causing death, he explained that it would be hard to prove that the person pushing (assaulting) could have foreseen that their actions would result in death or injury of those ahead.

Regarding the guards of a nearby pub who blocked people climbing over the terrace railing to avoid being crushed during the accident, whether they could have foreseen that their actions might lead to death or injury will likely determine their legal responsibility.

Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min previously sparked controversy by stating, “It is understood that this was not a problem that could have been solved simply by deploying police or fire personnel in advance.”

In this regard, Attorney D, a former prosecutor, pointed out, “The police are an organization whose main duty is preventive administration. Even if an unreported illegal protest occurs, don’t the police respond? Whether there is an event organizer or not is not the key issue.”

He added, “This is a situation where administrative discretion narrows to mandatory discretion. The police had a duty to deploy sufficient personnel, but they neglected this duty, which constitutes dereliction of duty. Criminal punishment is possible.”

Attorney D also said, “The police are currently shifting responsibility onto citizens, but the police themselves are the investigation target. It is time for the prosecution to exercise appropriate investigative authority regarding police responsibility.”

Currently, the prosecution has formed an accident response headquarters led by Hwang Byung-joo, chief of the Criminal Division at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, and established an emergency response team at the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office, which has jurisdiction over the Itaewon area, led by Chief Prosecutor Han Seok-ri. However, the focus is more on supporting police investigations rather than conducting their own investigation.

Due to the adjustment of investigative authority between the prosecution and police, the prosecution has lost investigative authority over crimes such as professional negligence causing death or injury and large-scale disaster crimes, so they have begun legal reviews in preparation for police requests for search warrants.

However, if the police are reported for dereliction of duty related to this incident, the prosecution can conduct its own investigation even under the revised Prosecutors’ Office Act.

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