A. On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act against B and the representative director C of the said company (Article 2017-type 6290 of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office), and the prosecutor belonging to the branch office of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office (Article 2017-type 6290 of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office), issued a non-prosecution disposition against the said company and C on September 26, 2017.

B. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against the disposition of non-prosecution on the said disposition. However, the Daegu High Prosecutors’ Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 23, 2017.

C. On November 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a copying of the documents listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant information”) among the case records in the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2017-Type 6290 (hereinafter “instant information”).

On November 20, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of the copying of the instant information on the ground that the disclosure of the records constitutes “where confidential information in the investigative method that should be kept confidential due to the disclosure of records is likely to be leaked or unnecessary new disputes arise.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff filed an application for a copying of the instant information with the intent to verify whether the instant case was processed in accordance with the law and principles as the accuser. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition denying this is unlawful. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant information falls under Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecution, and the “written opinion” and “information on investigation results” among the instant information fall under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), and the other “the status of installation of a defense wall between the head of the SSC compromise and the office/Analysis room”, etc. are information under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.