Newsnomics AJAY ANGELINA reporter |

Seoul central district court ruled that if the police arrest the foreigner who had a fight with a Korean without sufficient grounds and did not provide an interpreter, “the state must compensate.” Announced by Eun-ha Lim, the Presider Judge of the Civil Appellate Division 1-1 of the Seoul Central District Court on July 8,2024.

The decision is partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the damages claim filed by Mr. A against the state, saying, “Pay 2 million won in alimony to the plaintiff.” 

The court said, “The state is responsible for compensating for damages caused by police officers illegally arresting the plaintiff in violation of the law while carrying out their duties, either intentionally or negligently, and subjecting the plaintiff to an investigation without providing an interpretation or presence of a trusted person.”

Mr. A, a Moroccan citizen who married with a Korean and lived in Korea for more than 10 years, got into an argument with Mr. B, a Korean, while working at a moving center in March 2020. 

Mr. B swore at Mr. A, saying, “Aren’t you an illegal immigrant?” and filmed Mr. A’s face with a cell phone camera. Mr. A was arrested on the charge of pushing Mr. B's chest once in the process of preventing himself. 

But, Mr. A was sentenced to ‘no charges’ by the prosecution in June of the same year.

Afterwards, Mr. A filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission, saying, “The process of arresting criminals in the act was illegal and interpretation was not provided, which hindered the exercise of the right to defense.” 

The Human Rights Commission judged that the police's actions were an arbitrary exercise of public power, and recommended disciplinary action and job training for the police in November 2020.

Mr. A filed a lawsuit for damages against the state based on the decision of the Human Rights Commission, but lost in the first trial. However, unlike the first trial, the second trial judged that arresting Mr. A red-handed was excessive.

The second trial said, “Even though the crime for which he was arrested red-handed was very minor and it was possible to investigate the basis for the assault charge by requesting attendance at a later date or guiding voluntary attendance, the plaintiff was arrested red-handed within about 10 minutes after arriving at the

scene. 

“He said, “You should not judge that there is a risk of flight just because the plaintiff is a foreigner, and you should not be hasty in assuming that the plaintiff will destroy evidence without specific grounds.”

He continued, “Even if the plaintiff (a foreigner) is able to have daily conversations to some extent, communication may not be smooth if he or she uses difficult vocabulary or speaks at length. 

“In particular, the meaning of legal terms and other content may be unfamiliar,” he said. “Special care must be taken to ensure that foreigners are not disadvantaged or discriminated against in criminal justice procedures.” The second trial court found that the police did not make every effort to confirm Mr. A’s intentions.

Meanwhile, in this trial, the state argued that “the lawsuit should be dismissed because the mutual guarantee between Morocco and the Republic of Korea is not recognized.” 

The case was decided by the Supreme Court after the state filed an appeal against this ruling on the 21st of last month.