정보공개거부처분취소
1. Each appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for the following '2. high-end part'. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts in height:
A. The first instance court’s judgment Nos. 11 and 14 are as follows.
The defendant rejected the plaintiff's request for inspection and copy of the video recordings and records of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the records of this case, etc.") based on the provisions of Article 22 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors' Office.
However, the rules for the preservation of prosecutor's office cannot be the basis for each disposition of this case merely because they are administrative rules.
In addition, information contained in the records, etc. of this case does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the subparagraphs of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).
Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case made on different premise is unlawful.
B. From Nos. 3 to 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following facts are followed.
1. Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case based on Article 22 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors' Offices provides that information that is classified as confidential or confidential matters by an order delegated by law may not be disclosed, but the above order is restricted by the National Assembly Regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the Constitutional Court Regulations,
However, Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors' Office, which the Defendant initially used as the basis for each of the dispositions of this case, is not prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice. Thus, even if such delegation order is based on Article 11 of the Prosecutors' Office Act, it does not constitute
Therefore, the defendant is based on Article 22 of the Prosecution Preservation Work Rules.