earticle

영어

Today, the issue of false reporting, or fake emergency call is a major hindrance to police operation, causing a huge waste of police force and creating a vacuum in public security. It is true that Korean Police have been dealing with the problem of false reports through criminal and civil measures, but they have failed to function as an effective solution. This article points out the limitations of such criminal and civil easures to false reports, urging an adoption of a paradigm of Police (Administrative) Law, and in particular, suggesting approaches based on Police Cost Law (Polizeikostenrecht in German) theory. The main point of the debate is whether police can charge the false reporter – a so-called ‘danger inducer’ who has Police Liability (Polizeiverantwortung) under the theory of Police Administrative Law - for the Police Costs that were spent for danger prevention measures. It is necessary to first understand the concept of Police Cost, then to examine if the police are able to demand reimbursement for Police Costs from danger inducers with two aspects; an aspect of legal theory and the aspect of legislation. First of all, in a legal theoretical aspect, despite the public interest of the danger-prevention tasks and the principle of tax state, the police costs incurred to remove danger caused by a particular person could be charged to the danger inducer in certain areas (e.g. false reporting). Even if it is acknowledgeable to charge the danger inducers for police costs (which were spent to prevent danger), comprehensive or separate provisions for imposing police costs must be prepared in terms of actual legislation, since charging police costs is subject to legal provision. In addition, if unliable citizens are harmed by the danger-prevention measures taken by the police based on false reports, it is required to seek remedies for them, one of which is an compensation for loss to the victims. A variety of factors, such as the public perception of law, limit of bearableness, and the gravity of danger should be considered comprehensively in order to determine the 'special sacrifice' which is a requirement for compensation for loss. Furthermore, regarding the standard of compensation for loss, the police should make an objective and reasonable level of compensation in consideration of the high public interest of police measures and the public perception of law, away from the consistent stance of Korean Constitutional Court and Supreme Court who have been adamant on ‘full compensation’. In case that the police compensated loss to the people damaged by the danger prevention measures, the right of recourse of the police on danger inducers should be admitted. In order to root out the problem of false reporting and to properly deal with it when happens, it is imperative that the police have a legal basis of imposing police costs to false reporters and of demanding reimbursement for compensation which the police paid to unliable citizens. Above all, a public recognition that the police can charge false reporters for police costs should be established.