열람등사불허가처분취소
1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows upon the claim that the plaintiff reduced in this court.
2. The Defendant on January 2015
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 6, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 2009-No. 1687 against the charge of perjury (hereinafter “the first accusation case”). The gist of the accusation is that C appeared as a witness and testified in the court in the case of alteration of private document No. 2008-Ma793, Sungnam Branch of the Suwon District Court for D.
During the investigation process regarding the above complaint case, there were examinations of suspects C, examinations of the Plaintiff and C, and hearing of statements from witnesses D.
On September 16, 2009, the prosecutor in charge rendered a non-prosecution disposition against C on the grounds that there is no suspicion, and the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's petition for adjudication was dismissed on December 28, 2009, and the plaintiff's reappeal was also dismissed.
B. In March 24, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against C under suspicion of perjury with the Sung-nam District Prosecutors’ Office 2009 type No. 46483 (hereinafter “Inventory case”) (hereinafter “the Prosecutor in charge of inventory lawsuit”) against C in charge of non-prosecution disposition against C on March 24, 2010.
C. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s investigation records of the inventory case to the Defendant for the purpose of submitting it as evidence for other relevant accusation cases.
(D) The Defendant did not make a decision on the disclosure of information even after 20 days of the Plaintiff’s above application. [Evidence A No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings]
2. Attached Form of related statutes;
3. The entry into the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety
A. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) visited the public service offices of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Plaintiff applied for inspection and copying of all investigation records of the instant case; (b) as a result of the confirmation by the relevant employee, the instant investigation records were sent to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office on October 13, 2015 upon the request for the loan of records by the public prosecutor belonging to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office; and (c) thus,