[2] The meaning of "information pertaining to execution and correction of punishment, which, if disclosed, substantially makes it difficult for a public institution to perform its duties" under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[3] In a case where a court examines whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency was illegal, and the part that did not correspond to the grounds for non-disclosure is mixed with the part that rejected the disclosure, and where two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, whether partial revocation can be ordered only for the information that can be disclosed (affirmative), and the meaning of the case where partial

[4] In a case where a prisoner filed a criminal complaint or civil lawsuit on the ground of a correctional officer's harsh act and requested the disclosure of information such as "work report" and "meeting minutes of the disciplinary committee" to secure evidentiary materials, but the prison warden rejected such request, the case holding that the work report cannot be deemed as non-disclosure, and the part of the disciplinary committee's deliberation and resolution among the minutes of the disciplinary committee's disciplinary committee's minutes cannot be deemed as non-disclosure, but the disclosure is allowed

[2] "Information pertaining to the execution and correction of a sentence" under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act is highly likely to obstruct the fair and efficient performance of duties related to the management and maintenance of order of prisoners, the safety of confinement facilities, the appropriate treatment of prisoners and correction and edification when disclosed, and the extent of disclosure is significant.

[3] In a case where a court examines whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency was illegal, and where it can be recognized that the information refused to disclose is mixed with the information that falls under the grounds for non-disclosure, and that the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the court may order partial revocation of such information. In a case where partial disclosure of information is allowed, the court may exclude or delete technologies, etc. related to the information subject to non-disclosure in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information, and only disclose the remaining information, and it is worth disclosure only

[4] In a case where a prisoner detained in a prison filed a criminal complaint or civil lawsuit against the relevant correctional officer on the ground of harsh conduct and requested the disclosure of information such as "work report" and "the minutes of the disciplinary committee" to secure evidentiary materials, but the head of prison refused such request, the case holding that the work report cannot be deemed as non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, and the part of the disciplinary committee's deliberation and resolution on non-disclosure among the minutes of the disciplinary committee cannot be deemed as non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the same Act, but it is allowed to separate the disclosure on the grounds that the part of the disciplinary procedure, such as the statement of the prisoner, the answer between the chairperson and the relevant prisoner, does not constitute

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

In light of the fact that the citizen’s “right to know” (i.e., freedom of access to, collection and processing of information is a right directly guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution because it shares the nature of the right to freedom as well as the right to claim. Article 3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”) declares the principle of information disclosure by allowing in principle the disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions. Article 9 of the Act lists exceptional reasons, public institutions requested disclosure of information held and managed by the citizen should disclose such information unless it falls under non-disclosure reasons prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Act. Even if refusal, it is possible to concretely confirm and examine the contents of the information subject to disclosure to which they conflict with any legal interests or fundamental rights and to determine where it falls under any of the above subparagraphs, and thus, it is difficult to determine whether it falls under Article 20 of the Act. 20 of the Act should be made by comparing and examining the interests protected by non-disclosure with the interests of citizens such as fairness in performing their duties, transparency in government affairs, and public administration and administration.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below which partially admitted the judgment of the court of first instance and the records, the plaintiff was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of the plaintiff's judgment and refused to enter the room at the time of request for release from the Gwangju prison on January 19, 2007, which was being admitted in the Gwangju prison, and was subject to suppression from prison officers, and was ordered to be transferred to each disciplinary committee on January 23 and February 2 of the same year, but then filed a criminal complaint and civil lawsuit against the officer in charge on the ground of harsh conduct, and then filed a criminal complaint and civil lawsuit against the defendant for the purpose of securing evidentiary materials, while the defendant requested the disclosure of information, such as the work report on January 19, 19 and the minutes of each disciplinary committee on February 2, 2007, which was rejected by the defendant, and thus sought revocation of the rejection disposition.

As to the above part of the work report of this case among the information disclosure claim of this case, the court below, based on Article 7 of the Criminal Administration Act and Article 59 of the former Correctional Officers' Duties Rules (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 654 of Dec. 19, 2008), the work report of this case, which a correctional officer prepares with respect to the reason that a correctional officer has occurred while performing his duties, includes the situation of the reason, the background of the occurrence of the reason, the process and response measures, etc., so that it can be inferred by the correctional officer's working method, work form, response measures, etc., the work report of this case also includes the plaintiff's report on the act of disturbance of Jan. 19, 200 with the contents of reporting the situation and response methods at the time. In light of the situation such as the poor working environment of the correctional officer and the concern of retaliation by prisoners, it is sufficiently difficult for the correctional officer to stop the act of violation of prisoners and to prepare appropriate response measures, so it is not subject to disclosure.

However, as stated by the court below, since the work report of this case is an official document prepared and kept regularly in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, it should be deemed as subject to disclosure under Article 3 of the Act, in principle, as long as the work report of this case is an official document prepared and kept regularly under the relevant laws and regulations, it shall not be deemed as subject to disclosure. In addition, if the plaintiff subject to the work report of this case brought a lawsuit against the correctional officers on the grounds of the measure taken by the correctional officers, or the responsibility or location of the measure to cope with the situation, the necessity of disclosure and review of the above work report of confirming or reporting the relevant facts in order to protect the rights of prisoners or ensure legitimacy of correction work, and even considering the actual contents of the work report of this case confirmed by the court of first instance through non-disclosure inspection (record 202 pages), it is difficult to view that the disclosure of the report of this case causes any practical obstacle to the correction work of the plaintiff, who is a legal directly interested party, and it is difficult to view that the disclosure or disclosure of the report of this case is necessary directly and objectively and objectively.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by emphasizing only the general and abstract risks is justifiable is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on disclosure of corrective information as stipulated in Articles 3 and 9(1)4 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

In a case where the court examines whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency is illegal, and where it recognizes that the non-disclosure part of the information refused is mixed with the non-disclosure part, and that the two parts can be separated within the extent not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, it may be limited to the information that can be disclosed and ordered to revoke the partial disclosure. In a case where the partial disclosure of information is permitted, it is possible to exclude or delete the technology, etc. related to the information subject to non-disclosure from the relevant information in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information, and only disclose the remaining information, and there is a value of disclosure only with the other part (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003; 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005; 2002Du14,

The lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s request within the scope of seeking disclosure and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as to the remainder of the minutes on the ground that the part of the instant claim seeking disclosure of the minutes of the disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s disciplinary committee’s minutes, including the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s statement made in the Plaintiff’s presence, the chairperson, and the Plaintiff’s answer made in the process of examination and decision, and (b) disclosure of the contents of the written statement made by the members during the process of examination and decision, would hinder the free crisis of examination and impede securing fairness; and (c) on the other hand, the part of the disciplinary procedure’s proceedings, such as the Plaintiff’s statement made in the Plaintiff’s presence, the chairperson, and the Plaintiff’s answer made in the aforementioned manner, cannot be deemed to seriously interfere with an individual’s personality or privacy, and thus, does

According to the above legal principles and the contents of the minutes of each disciplinary committee and the plaintiff's purport of this part, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

This part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles or inconsistent reasoning concerning information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) of the Act and disclosure of Article 14 of the Act, as otherwise alleged in the defendant's ground of appeal. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's decision cited by the defendant does not conflict with the judgment of the court below on the ground that the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)