A. The plaintiff served as the Daejeon Western Police Agency B District Register, and received a request from C to resolve the internal investigation case by exercising influence over the investigation of the Daejeon Regional Police Agency and the person in charge of the investigation of the Daejeon Western Police Agency and the Daejeon Western Police Station, and received a total of 40 million won from C over four times from January 30, 2007 to April 14, 2007, and received a bribe in relation to the referral of matters belonging to other public officials' duties by taking advantage of his status as a public official, for the criminal facts in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), which constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) from Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office, and was indicted for one year as a crime of acceptance of bribe at the Daejeon District Court on July 17, 2008, but was acquitted by the Daejeon High Court on January 7, 2009 (Seoul High Court Decision 2008No3984909).

(hereinafter referred to as “the acceptance of bribe case”). B.

With respect to the bribery case, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Prosecutor General on August 24, 2010 on the grounds that it constitutes Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on August 31, 2010, on the grounds that the Prosecutor General of the Daejeon High Prosecutor’s Office requested the Prosecutor General of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office to disclose all of the records of the psychological physiological examination that requested C, D, and G psychological physiological examination to the Prosecutor’s Office on December 11, 2010. However, on October 11, 2010, the Prosecutor of the Daejeon High Prosecutor’s Office requested the Prosecutor’s Office to make non-disclosure decisions on the ground that the case falls under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and notified the Prosecutor’s request for questioning to the Prosecutor General on the grounds that the case falls under the above paragraph (1) of the same Article. < Amended by Act No. 10360, Oct. 11, 2010>