A. On October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff was detained in the military prison, and on October 10, 2012, a correctional officer B belonging to the military prison arbitrarily opened a written petition of the Minister of Justice prepared and sealed by the Plaintiff, destroyed evidence related to the act of improper corruption by a correctional officer, etc., and filed a complaint with the competent military court of the Jeonju District Court against B on November 23, 2012, by abusing official authority and obstructing the exercise of rights.

(The District Court of Jeonju 2013 type 1973). (b)

On April 29, 2013, the prosecutor of the Jeonju District Court rendered a non-prosecution disposition on the same case (defluence of evidence).

On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against a non-prosecution disposition. However, the Gwangju High Prosecutors' Office rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on June 25, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication on July 4, 2013 with the Gwangju High Court (Seoul High Court) (Seoul High Court), but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for adjudication on September 30, 2013, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 8, 2013.

B. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the information in the separate sheet related to the case No. 2013-Type 1973 (hereinafter “instant information”). On November 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting disclosure of the instant information pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion filed a claim for disclosure of only the content of the statement, other than personal information, in the B’s statement, and thus, the instant information does not constitute an individual-related matter under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and even if so, includes individual-related matters.

The Information Disclosure Act.