The defendant limited to the plaintiff on February 28, 2013.

A. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a motion for the inspection and copying of records related to the protocol of interrogation of a suspect of occupational embezzlement case, investigation report, investigation report, notification of the progress of the processing of the case, list of records, etc. (hereinafter “instant information”) with respect to the Defendant’s complaint and the disposition that the Plaintiff was not suspected of being accused of the lack of evidence against the Defendant, which became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. On the same day, the Defendant rejected the instant application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant application falls under subparagraphs 2 and 5 of Article 22 of the Rules on the Military Prosecution Preservation Affairs (the internal documents of the investigative agency).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion filed a complaint with the Pakistan Police Station B, and filed the instant application with the Defendant as evidence in civil litigation related thereto, and the Defendant made the instant disposition in accordance with Article 22 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), which was unlawful as it violates the Official Information Disclosure Act.

(b) Attached Form 1 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. (1) Determination (1) Article 9(1)1 proviso of the Information Disclosure Act on Whether the rules on prosecutorial affairs may be used as the grounds for non-disclosure is limited to the National Assembly Regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the Constitutional Court Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, Presidential Decree, and municipal ordinances, while Article 22(1)2 and 5 of the Rules on Prosecutorial Affairs among the statutes that the Defendant used as the grounds for the disposition of this case, are not prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, and it is based on Article 11 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office Act.