2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-third of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder two-thirds by the Defendant.

2. Purport of appeal: Revocation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the revocation of a disposition rejecting disclosure of information on each information listed in the Defendant’s Schedule 1 list, and among the information listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 list as of October 30, 2007, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting disclosure of the work report, excluding the part of the review and resolution by the chairman and the members of the disciplinary committee as of December 24, 2007, among the information listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 list as of December 3, 2007, and the claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting disclosure of the minutes of

However, since only the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for revocation of disclosure refusal of a work report among the information listed in the attached Table 1 table 1 among the information listed in the attached Table 1 list 3 among the information listed in the attached Table 1 list 3, and the claim for revocation of disclosure refusal disposition (the part against the defendant) on the minutes of the disciplinary committee excluding the contents of the deliberation and resolution which the

2. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where "a person is currently being confined in the previous correctional institution through an integrative prison, through an ingrative prison, through an ingrative prison, through an ingrative prison, and through an ingrative prison" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. Part of the work report in the first disposition of this case

The defendant asserts that the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the work report among the dispositions No. 1 of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff received a non-disclosure decision on November 1, 2007 and filed a lawsuit on January 7, 2008. However, even according to the defendant's assertion, it is apparent that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit within 90 days from the date when the decision was served. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Among the instant dispositions No. 1, part of the work report and the minutes of the disciplinary committee’s minutes among the instant dispositions No. 2

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff has already obtained the work report and the minutes of the disciplinary committee related to the order to submit documents from the Gwangju District Court (Seoul District Court 2007Na9418) in civil litigation and uses them as evidentiary materials, the infringement of profits is terminated due to the circumstances after the disposition, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of the lawsuit in consultation.

In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, even if a public institution submits the requested information to the court and let the claimant deliver or deliver a copy of the information through the court, and thereby disclosing the information to the claimant, such a bypassing method cannot be deemed to be an disclosure under the law unless the law is planned, and the benefit of the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the non-disclosure decision in question is not extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6583, Mar. 26, 2004). In light of these legal principles, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each information recorded in the minutes of the disciplinary committee excluding the portion of the deliberation and resolution by the chairperson and members of the disciplinary committee among the information listed in the attached Table 1 list Nos. 1 and the information listed in the attached Table No. 3, among the information listed in the attached Table No. 1 list, shall be disclosed because it is directly related to the plaintiff,

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

(1) Part of the work report in the Disposition No. 1 of this case

Article 7 of the Criminal Administration Act provides that "the matters necessary for the duties of correctional officers shall be prescribed by the Minister of Justice," and Article 59 of the former Correctional Officers' Duties Rules (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 654, Dec. 19, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "When any of the following causes occurs, a prison officer shall report to his superior without delay the situation and opinions on the relevant cause, and handle them upon receiving his/her instructions."

Pursuant to the above provision, a document prepared by a correctional officer to report the situation and opinion of the reason is a “work report”. A work report shall include the situation where such reason occurred and the reasons why it became known, how the situation occurs, how to deal with the situation and how the situation occurs, and how to deal with the situation and how to deal with the situation. Accordingly, there is no need to include a proviso that can by which a correctional officer’s methods and forms of work, and how to respond

On the other hand, examining the work report listed in the attached list 1 No. 1, the above work report also means that the plaintiff refused to enter a room on January 19, 2007, and the worker reported the situation where such a reason occurred and the response method at that time occurred in the case where the riot was avoided.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement of evidence Nos. 9 and 10, in the case of 2004, since the number of prisoners per person is over 50 in most cases, a prison officer manages a large number of prisoners, a large number of correctional officers are suffering from being physically threatened by prisoners, and a large number of prison officers are suffering from retaliations against prisoners released, and a prison officer actually assaults or injures a correctional officer, it can be acknowledged that the case where a prison officer actually assaults or injures a correctional officer is frequently occurred. As such, in the present situation where a prison officer manages a large number of prisoners and a large number of correctional officers feel fear of fear of physical threats or retaliation, it is deemed that it is more difficult to prevent them from committing the act of prisoners and to prepare appropriate response measures, so it is likely that the execution of punishment and the execution of correctional duties will be significantly difficult.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the defendant's refusal of the request for disclosure of information on the work report among the information listed in the [Attachment 1] list 1 is legitimate.

(2) Part of the minutes of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s second disposition

According to Article 47 of the Criminal Administration Act, disciplinary action shall be determined by the resolution of the disciplinary committee (paragraph (1)), and the disciplinary committee shall be composed of three to five members, and the chairperson shall be appointed or commissioned by the chairperson from among the deputy head of the relevant correctional institution, etc. and outside persons with abundant knowledge and experience in correction (paragraph (2)). In order to guarantee free and active examination and resolution at the disciplinary committee, it shall be thoroughly guaranteed that the contents of each member's remarks are not disclosed to the outside in the process of examination and decision, even after the termination of the committee. If the minutes stating the contents of each member's remarks are disclosed, the members cannot freely exchange their opinions with psychological pressure and even if they are unlikely to have a consistent opinion with the parties or external intentions, it may undermine free examination minutes and impede fairness, and the minutes of the disciplinary committee shall be deemed to constitute "information pertaining to information disclosure under Article 50 (2) 30 of the Official Information Disclosure Act" (see Article 50 (2) 40 of the Official Information Disclosure Act).

Meanwhile, according to the statement in Eul evidence 3, the minutes of the disciplinary committee set forth in attached Table 1 No. 3 include the contents that the plaintiff attended the disciplinary committee and proceed with the disciplinary procedure and the chairperson and the members of the disciplinary committee who attended the disciplinary committee and asked questions and answers made by the plaintiff to the plaintiff. Among them, the contents that the plaintiff attended the disciplinary committee and asked questions and answers made by the chairperson and the members of the disciplinary committee are made public, i.e., the contents that the disciplinary procedure was conducted shall be disclosed to the public, and it shall not be deemed that there is a significant obstacle to the execution of the correctional duties, because it is difficult to see that there is

However, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "where the information requested for disclosure contains any part falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9 (1) (information subject to non-disclosure) and the part that can be disclosed, if two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9 (1) shall be excluded." The minutes of the disciplinary committee are clearly divided into the contents of disciplinary procedures and the contents deliberated and resolved by the chairperson of the disciplinary committee and the members of the disciplinary committee, and thus, the purpose of information disclosure may be achieved by separating or copying the part subject to non-disclosure and disclosing only the part to be disclosed through disclosure.

Therefore, the rejection disposition of disclosure of information on the remaining part of the minutes of the disciplinary committee as set forth in the [Attachment 1] No. 3 among the disposition No. 2 of this case, excluding the contents deliberated and resolved by the chairperson and the members of the disciplinary committee

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the information in the plaintiff's claim No. 1 list No. 3, the part concerning the minutes of the disciplinary committee excluding the contents examined and resolved by the chairperson and the members of the disciplinary committee in private disclosure among the information in the plaintiff's claim No. 1 list No. 1 list among the information in the plaintiff's claim, shall be cited, and the part concerning the work report among the information in the

However, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in some different conclusions. As such, the part of the defendant's appeal was partially accepted, and the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition rejecting disclosure of the work report among the information listed in the [Attachment 1] No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the remaining appeal of the defendant

[Attachment 1]

Judges Park Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) Kim Hong-il Lee