2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Changwon District Prosecutor’s Office No. 12429 against the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter “instant complaint”). However, the prosecutor of the above prosecutor’s office issued a non-prosecution disposition on June 22, 2016 without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence).

B. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for inspection and copying of the records of the instant case (hereinafter “the records of the instant case”). On June 27, 2016, the Defendant permitted the inspection and copying of the written opinion, the written complaint, and the written statement of the complainant, among the records of the instant case, on the grounds that the disclosure of the records of Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “Non-disclosure Information”) constitutes “the disclosure of the records that may seriously undermine the reputation, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace of life of the person involved in the instant case” (hereinafter “Disposition”). D. The Defendant rendered a decision that the non-disclosure information of the instant case constitutes a disposition that is likely to infringe on the freedom of privacy of an individual, such as a resident registration number or personal information disclosure (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 22 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving the Prosecutor’s Office is merely an administrative rule that provides an internal administrative agency with no legal basis for delegation, and thus cannot be deemed the legal basis for the instant disposition. The instant non-disclosure information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Although the rules on prosecutorial affairs concerning the initial reason for disposition (Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors' Offices) were enacted by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice pursuant to Article 11 of the Prosecutor's Office Act, Article 22 which provides for the restriction on perusal and copying of the records of non-prosecutions, is merely an administrative rule within the administrative agency with no legal basis for delegation, and therefore, the restriction on perusal and copying under Article 22 of the above Rules does not constitute "where there are special provisions in other Acts concerning the disclosure of information under Article 4(1) of the Information Disclosure Act" or "where other Acts or subordinate statutes prescribe the restriction as confidential or confidential matters under the delegation order (limited to the National Assembly rules, Supreme Court rules, Constitutional Court rules, Constitutional Court rules, Presidential Decree, and municipal ordinances, etc.)" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du16735, Jun. 28, 2012). Therefore, Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors's.

2) Whether additional grounds for disposition are permitted

Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information that is likely to undermine the protection of an individual’s life, body, and property, or infringe on the individual’s privacy, shall be excluded from disclosure, and Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Public Prosecution shall not disclose the same information. Thus, Article 9(1)3 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act should be deemed as identical to the basic facts of Article 22(1)2 and 1 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Public Prosecution, one of the initial grounds for disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8395, Dec. 11, 2003). Therefore, it is allowed to add information to the grounds for disposition under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

3) Whether information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act constitutes information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the same Act includes not only personal identification information that determines whether information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as name and resident registration number under the Information Disclosure Act, but also information pertaining to an individual, including “personally secret, etc.” as a result of disclosure of personal information, and information that may interfere with personal and mental life or make it difficult to freely engage in private life.” Thus, in cases where non-prosecution records are deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual, the content of the statement other than the suspect, etc. recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol, etc. among the records subject to non-prosecution disposition, should be determined by comparing the information that the person prepared or acquired, and deemed necessary to disclose information to the public or to protect the rights of an individual, such as non-disclosure information, with the aim of protecting the rights of the individual, referring to the proviso to Article 9(1)6(c).

Furthermore, as a result of an examination of illegality of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency, when the court recognizes that the information refused to disclose is mixed with the information subject to non-disclosure and that the information can be disclosed to the extent that it does not violate the purport of the request for disclosure, and that only the part concerning the information subject to non-disclosure can be partially revoked, even if there is no modification to the purport of the request for disclosure. In addition, the part pertaining to non-disclosure that does not go against the purport of the request for disclosure can be separated from the part pertaining to the information subject to non-disclosure that can be disclosed to the extent that it does not mean the case where the two parts can be physically separated, not the case where the information in question refers to the case where the information in question is excluded or deleted from the technology related to the information subject to non-disclosure, and only the remaining part can be disclosed to the public, and it shall be interpreted that the other part alone is worth disclosure

B) According to the result of the court’s perusal and examination of the records of this case by non-disclosure, the records of this case are recognized as including the resident registration number, age, occupation, address, etc. of a third party other than the plaintiff, criminal and investigation experience, criminal punishment records, copies of resident registration certificates, and photographs on the copy of driver registration certificates or driver registration certificates, such as non-disclosure information listed in attached Table 2. The above information is not deemed necessary for protecting the rights of the plaintiff, or is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed. Thus, it is reasonable to keep it closed in accordance

However, it is difficult to view the remainder of the records of this case as the statement of the suspect and reference witness, etc., which is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of the person who made a statement, etc. due to disclosure, and there is a need to disclose them for the relief of the rights

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the information other than the non-disclosure information listed in the attached Form 2 among the instant records is subject to disclosure pursuant to the main text of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, the disposition of information subject to disclosure among the instant dispositions is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-young

Judge Park Jong-sung