가. 원고의 아버지인 B(B, 이하 ‘망인’이라 한다)은 2011. 9. 6. 서울 강북구 C에서 두개골이 함몰되고 배에 흉기로 인한 자상(刺傷)이 있는 상태의 사체로 발견되었다.

D, the deceased’s death village, was found as the dead body of the last state at a place 3km away from the deceased’s death on the same day.

B. The police tried to investigate D as a suspect of murdering against the Deceased.

On November 17, 2011, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office decided that D was not prosecuted on September 6, 201 on the ground that D died on September 6, 2011.

(Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 201, 44739). (c)

Around that time, the Plaintiff filed a copy of the attached non-disclosure information with the Defendant. However, on December 7, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition based on Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Military Prosecution Preservation Affairs (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the disclosure of the attached non-disclosure information could either divulge confidential information in the investigative method or cause unnecessary new disputes.

D. The Defendant added Article 20-2 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecution’s Office and Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act to the grounds for disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 22(1)4 and Article 20-2 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecutions is merely an administrative rule, and thus, it cannot be subject to a non-permission disposition based on the above provisions.

In addition, the attached information shall not fall under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1 related legal principles are “the right to know” of the citizens.