A. On February 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,00 as a result of the crime of interference with business on the ground that “The Plaintiff, under the influence of alcohol in front of the C convenience store located in Ansan-si, a member B on July 2005, the Plaintiff did not find a Handphone (E after the opening of the name; hereinafter “E”) that he did not have any handphone, which he was charged in the said E, and the Plaintiff was able to take a large bath around the camera by 15:40 on the same day, and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50,000 as a result of the crime of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1389, Jun. 20, 2007). The Plaintiff’s appeal and final appeal were all dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 7, 2007 as it is.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007No725 Decided July 12, 2007 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6292 Decided September 7, 2007). (b)

On September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office against E and Mat employees who were the aforementioned complainants, but E, etc. was subject to a disposition of suspicion by the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office on November 16, 2009.

The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, but was dismissed, and again filed a reappeal to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the plaintiff filed a request for the disclosure of information on investigation records of the case No. 2010 B.398 at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

C. On April 26, 2010, the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to peruse and copy part of the investigation records, such as the written complaint and attached documents, the Plaintiff’s statement and documents to be submitted, the written application for address correction, the written application for appeal and attached documents, the written application for dismissal of appeal, and the certified copy of the written application for dismissal of appeal. However, with respect to the information listed in [Attachment 1] through [Attachment 1] Nos. 22(1)2 through 5 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office and Article 16 subparag. 3 of the "Guidelines for Handling Inspection and Copy of Case Records" of the Regulations on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office.

The information set forth in the above Nos. 1 to 3 is called 1 to c.