정보공개거부처분 취소
1. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant excluded the part of the attached Table 1 non-disclosure information from the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure taken by the head of the Military Prison on or around October 17, 2012, on the grounds of his/her duty obstruction and false report, unauthorized correspondence, acceptance of illegal goods, production, etc.
B. The Plaintiff asserted that B, who was admitted to a military prison, together with the Plaintiff, made a false statement unfavorable to the Plaintiff during the imposition procedure of the above disciplinary measure, and filed a complaint against B as a non-prosecution to the Goyang Branch Office of the Government's High Prosecutors' Office, but B was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on August 27, 2013.
(Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 2013No. 23315). (c)
On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the written statement (excluding personal information; hereinafter “instant information”) in the investigation records of the case No. 2013-type No. 23315 of the Gyeyang District Office.
On April 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose the instant information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant information constitutes “information deemed likely to seriously impede the protection of people’s lives, bodies, and property, if disclosed,” as provided by Article 9(1)3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, as the content of the statement made by B to investigation agencies and included the part relating to the private life of B.
In addition, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act, as it may cause risks to the life and body of B if disclosed.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 cited Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act as the grounds for non-disclosure of the instant information, but this case’s assertion.