A strange creature appears at Hopo Port. Branch Office chief Beom-seok (played by Hwang Jung-min) mistakes a target behind a door in a building for the strange creature and opens fire with resident Nak-yeon (played by Lee Sang-hee). But the person who fell was not the strange creature; it was butcher shop owner Gyeong-seok (played by Jeong Ji-soon). Gyeong-seok is badly injured. Beom-seok and Nak-yeon discuss transporting him to a public health center, but the actual transport and his subsequent survival are not clearly presented.
It is a scene from director Na Hong-jin's film "Hope." If the same thing happened in reality, you cannot simply conclude, "It is illegal because a person was mistaken for a strange creature." You must separately examine whether there were reasonable grounds to judge the situation as dangerous at the time, and even if so, whether opening fire was necessary. If the shooting was illegal, government compensation is at issue, and if it was lawful but a blameless citizen suffered harm, loss compensation becomes the issue.
◇ Even if the mistake was reasonable, the lawfulness of the "shooting" is a separate matter
The Police Duties Execution Act requires a substantial reason for the use of a weapon, and says responses must be limited to what is necessary based on a reasonable assessment of the situation. In particular, the use of weapons that cause harm to people is strictly limited. While there is no uniform firing sequence or body-part-specific shooting standard that applies to all situations in statutes, the Korean National Police Agency's regulations and directives grade physical force according to the subject's level of resistance and danger and restrict firearms use to minimize loss of life, such as preferably aiming at the lower body.
Therefore, even if Beom-seok had reasonable grounds to judge Gyeong-seok as a strange creature, that does not automatically justify opening fire. One must separately assess whether the shooting was necessary and proportionate by considering the degree and urgency of the danger at the time and whether other response options existed.
◇ Was it reasonable to see a person as a strange creature? "Reasonable mistake" is the first threshold
Article 5 of the Police Duties Execution Act defines the "appearance of dangerous animals, etc." as grounds for police to take measures to prevent the occurrence of danger. Attorney Lee Su-dong of One Law Firm, a specialist in government compensation, said, "Even in a situation not anticipated by the law, such as the appearance of a strange creature, the lawfulness can be inferred and assessed under this provision," adding, "Ultimately, the key is whether it conforms to the circumstances at the time and the principle of proportionality."
The first fork in the road is whether Beom-seok's mistake was reasonable. Lee said, "Apparent danger means there was no actual specific danger, but a specific danger was mistakenly perceived under the reasonable standard of an average police officer," and explained, "In that case, the officer's intervention is lawful."
On the other hand, if the assessment of danger was wrong despite a lack of objective grounds, it falls under "false danger," and the intervention may be unlawful.
Regarding the situation in the film, Lee said, "If a strange creature actually appeared and was attacking residents in an urgent situation, and if Gyeong-seok showed an appearance or behavior similar to the creature, it would correspond to apparent danger, and the officer's mistake itself could fall within the bounds of lawful judgment." Conversely, if it was clearly possible to identify Gyeong-seok as a person, it could constitute an unlawful execution of duties.
In 2018, the Supreme Court also ruled that the lawfulness of police measures must be judged based on the specific circumstances at the time of the measures rather than on results revealed later. Lee said, "What matters is not that the judgment turned out to be wrong, but whether there were reasonable grounds from the officer's perspective at the time to make such a mistake."
◇ If unlawful, government compensation… lawful shooting may still warrant loss compensation
If the mistake was reasonable and the shooting was also unavoidable, the police execution of duties may be lawful. That does not mean Gyeong-seok, who was wrongly shot, must bear the harm.
Lee said, "Gyeong-seok bears no responsibility for causing the dangerous situation of the strange creature's appearance," explaining that a claim for loss compensation is possible under the Police Duties Execution Act. Conversely, if there were no reasonable grounds for the mistake or if the shooting exceeded what was necessary, government compensation liability could be at issue.
Civilian Nak-yeon also took part in the shooting. If the unlawful acts of Beom-seok and Nak-yeon together caused Gyeong-seok harm, a joint tort could be established. If Beom-seok, despite knowing of Gyeong-seok's severe injury, failed to take necessary rescue or protective measures and the damage increased, and if a causal link is recognized between that breach of duty and the aggravation, a separate government compensation liability could arise apart from the initial shooting.
◇ The U.S. also looks to the circumstances at the time rather than the "mistaken result"
In the United States, whether police use of force was reasonable is judged mainly by the circumstances on the scene at the time. In Green v. City of St. Louis, decided by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025, an officer pursuing a fleeing suspect mistook off-duty officer Milton Green for the suspect and opened fire. The court focused on the reasonableness of the officer's judgment based on the circumstances at the time rather than the later fact that Green was not the suspect, and it rejected Green's civil rights damages claim.
Although not a mistaken-identity shooting, in Barnes v. Felix in 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court also held that when assessing the reasonableness of police force, courts should not view only the moment of the shooting in isolation but should consider the full set of circumstances leading up to it.
In the end, the crux of the Gyeong-seok shooting is not the result that "a person was mistakenly shot." What determines lawfulness is whether Beom-seok had reasonable grounds at the time to mistake Gyeong-seok for a strange creature and whether, even in that situation, opening fire was necessary and a proportionate response.