정보공개거부처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of “Refusal to disclose information” against the Plaintiff on September 17, 2015 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
The details and details of the disposition are as follows: (a) from March 25, 2015 to March 18, 2016, the investigation and trial were conducted on suspicion of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) and the Plaintiff was conducted in Seongdong-gu.
On March 26, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff met with friendship B and two interviews in Seongdong-gu’s meeting room. At the time, the Defendant recorded the details of meetings between the Plaintiff and B.
On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of information on “the files and records recording the contents of meetings between the Plaintiff and B as above” (hereinafter “instant information”).
On September 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that the disclosure of the instant information is likely to make it difficult for the correctional institution to perform its duties, and that the disclosure of personal information, such as personal information of the other party, is likely to infringe on the freedom of individuals, and thus, it shall not disclose the instant information pursuant to Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).
(hereinafter “Disposition” (hereinafter “instant Disposition”). 【Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings does not constitute “information subject to non-disclosure” under Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act.
The instant disposition violated the Plaintiff’s right to know and the right to defense of the complainants, which are guaranteed by the Constitution without justifiable grounds.
Even if some of the information of this case is personal information, the defendant is obligated to disclose the remaining information except personal information.
For this reason, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.
Judgment
It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.
Whether it falls under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act or not, is significantly difficult to perform the duties of the "Correction Institution", and the execution and correction of the sentence provided for non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act.