The defendant's disposition rejecting information disclosure made against the plaintiff on December 12, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. The defendant's indication of the judgment of the first instance court shall be corrected to "the chief of the police station of the police station of the police station of the deceased."

A. On August 2008, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the police officers Nonparty 1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter “relevant police officers”) (hereinafter “instant accusation case”) with the following content at the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency:

(1) On January 2, 2007, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 of the police officer, who belongs to the Seongdong-gu Police Station ○○○○○ District, filed a report with the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff’s house located in the Plaintiff’s Seongbuk-gun (hereinafter omitted) around 15:10 on January 2, 2007, that she stolen a fire fighter accumulated in opposite to the Plaintiff’s food with an agrochemical on the Plaintiff’s food, the inspection institution shall request food ingredients test and actively investigate the possible arrest of the stolen suspect. However, if the inspection institution requests food ingredients test, it is necessary to check whether a pesticide dealer is contaminated with remaining agricultural chemicals, and the fire shield was natural erosion and fire fighting was completed for a long time, and without good cause, abandons the duty of criminal investigation without any justifiable reason. ② If the Plaintiff’s temporary landscape collected at the same time, and the Plaintiff’s temporary smell was confirmed as to the end of smelling, the Plaintiff did not return to the Plaintiff any other person’s evidence related to criminal case.

(2) On May 31, 2007, the police officer Nonparty 4, who belongs to the Sungdong Police Station, received a written petition related to the contents of the above paragraph (1) from the plaintiff at the investigation of the Sungdong Police Station and the office of the intelligence criminal investigation team, shall conduct a fair investigation. However, the police officer neglected his duties without justifiable grounds, such as treating the plaintiff as a mentally ill person and dependent on the statement of Nonparty 5 and the person who is suspected of being the neighboring resident of the plaintiff as the suspect, and closing the internal investigation.

B. In relation to the instant accusation case, the Defendant was submitted a explanatory note from relevant police officers for internal inspection and investigation of the relevant police officers (hereinafter “instant explanatory note”).

C. On December 11, 2008, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the information on the instant explanatory note, but on December 12, 2008, the Defendant issued a notice of non-disclosure decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the following grounds.

(i) Non-disclosure in accordance with the detailed criteria for non-disclosure by function of the National Police Agency (hereinafter “Ground for non-disclosure”);

Pursuant to Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Information Disclosure Act”), the disclosure of information to the public (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for the second disposition”) shall be made pursuant to Article 9 (1) 5.

Article 5 of the Guidelines for Inspection and Copy of Case Records (No. 381 of the Regulations of the Prosecutors' Office) (hereinafter referred to as "grounds for Disposition No. 3")

x. Confidentiality pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as "the ground for disposition No. 4").

(v)in accordance with the results of inquiries by the Director General of the National Police Agency (the Inspector of the National Police Agency) on the person in charge of the disclosure of information (the senior non-party 6)

D. The gender branch office of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition on December 23, 2008 on the grounds that all the cases of the instant complaint were not suspected of having been prosecuted (Evidence of Evidence). Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication, but the Daegu High Court (Seoul High Court) dismissed the Plaintiff's application for adjudication on July 17, 2009 on the ground that the above non-prosecution disposition was justifiable, and the Plaintiff re-appealed on September 3, 2009 (2009Mo954) but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff's reappeal on September 3, 2009.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant added Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act to one of the grounds for the instant disposition during the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the grounds for 1 disposition

The detailed criteria for non-disclosure by function of the National Police Agency are merely guidelines for internal handling of administrative agencies, and the above detailed criteria do not constitute “cases where non-disclosure is stipulated by other Acts or subordinate statutes,” under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act. Therefore, the defendant cannot refuse the disclosure of information in accordance with the above detailed criteria, and the ground for disposition 1 does not constitute justifiable grounds for refusing the disclosure of the report of this case.

(2) Determination on the grounds for 2 disposition

(A) According to Articles 2, 3, and 4(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, information refers to information recorded in documents, etc. prepared or acquired and managed by a public institution in the course of performing its duties, and information held and managed by a public institution is to be disclosed pursuant to this Act unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts. However, according to the proviso of Article 9(1)5 of the same Act, “information that is in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc., and that is disclosed to the public, may seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties or research and development” is one of the information subject to non-disclosure.

(B) In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and the legislative purport of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, “where there is a reasonable ground to believe that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed” under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, the term “where there is a high probability that fair performance of duties would interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed.” The issue of whether the information falls under this shall be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests such as fairness in the performance of duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests such as guaranteeing citizens’ right to know through the disclosure, securing citizens’ participation in government affairs, and securing transparency in government administration (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12946, Aug. 22, 2003).

(C) We examine whether the report of this case constitutes information subject to non-disclosure as referred to in the above provision, and ① the court of the trial, upon the result of the inspection of the report of this case by the court of first instance, submitted by the defendant from the police officers concerned in the course of internal inspection and investigation as to the case of this case against the plaintiff's related police officers. The report of this case contains the following purport: (a) relevant police officers investigate the contents of the report of this case around January 2, 2007 (the combination of agrochemicals in food and plant and no fire fighter no longer exist) and inquire about the surrounding areas and revealing that police officers did not err in their duties; (b) disclosure of this case is necessary to protect the plaintiff's right to know; (c) the content of the report of this case appears to have been repeated in the investigation process related to the complaint of this case; (c) the audit of the relevant police officers had already been completed; and (d) the content of the report of this case did not include the personal information of the person responsible for inspection or the contents of their remarks; and thus, it is hard to view that there exist considerable grounds for fair disclosure.

(3) Determination on the grounds for 3 measures

Article 9(1)1 of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions does not apply to cases where the restriction on reading and copying of the records of a case is stipulated as confidential matters by other Acts or subordinate statutes. Therefore, the defendant cannot refuse to disclose information in accordance with the above work process guidelines, and the reasons for disposition No. 3 does not constitute justifiable grounds for refusing disclosure of the records of a case.

(4) Determination on the ground for No. 4

Article 11(3) of the Information Disclosure Act provides, “Where all or part of the information requested for disclosure is deemed related to a third party, a public institution shall notify the third party of such fact without delay, and if necessary, it may hear his opinion.” Article 21(1) of the same Act provides, “Any third party notified of a request for disclosure pursuant to the provisions of Article 11(3) may request the relevant public institution not to disclose his/her relevant information within three days from the date of receipt of the notification.” This is merely a provision of the procedure to be followed by the relationship with the third party in determining whether to disclose the information held and managed by the public institution is related to a third party. If the information held and managed by the public institution is related to the third party, it is nothing more than a provision of the procedure to be followed by the public institution in determining whether to disclose the information, and it does not constitute a non-disclosure of information under the Information Disclosure Act solely on the ground of the third party’s request for non-disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du8680, Sept. 25, 2008)

(5) Determination on the grounds for No. 5

The opinion of the chief inspector of the National Police Agency is merely an independent opinion within the administrative agency, and thus cannot serve as the basis for refusing the disclosure of information. Therefore, the grounds for Disposition 5 also do not constitute a justifiable ground for refusing the disclosure of the statement of this case.

(6) Determination on the Defendant’s additional disposition (Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act)

(A) The Defendant, at the hearing of the court of first instance, asserts that the disposition of this case rejecting the disclosure of each of the above information is legitimate, on the grounds that the disclosure of the information constitutes the grounds for non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, as the information pertaining to an individual who can identify a specific person, such as the name, hospital name, and name of doctor, etc. of the resident within the jurisdiction included in the instant report, may infringe on the individual’s privacy or freedom

(B) In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other reasons only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical to those of the original disposition. The identity of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in the basic point of view, based on the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. The reason for interpreting that it is not allowed to assert the grounds for disposition on the grounds of a separate fact not recognized as identical to the basic factual relations lies in ensuring the other party’s right to defense of the administrative disposition, thereby realizing the rule of law and protecting the other party’s trust in the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001). Meanwhile, the reason for adding or changing the grounds for disposition is not specified in the original disposition, and it is not identical to the original reason for disposition on the ground that the party was aware of the fact (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du8684, Feb. 14, 1992).

(C) However, the reason under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act added to the reason for disposition by the defendant cannot be deemed identical to the basic facts. The reason under Article 9(1)6 of the same Act is not based on the facts newly generated after the disposition of this case, but on the basis of the facts already existed at the time of the initial disposition. Thus, the reason for non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the same Act added to the reason for disposition by the defendant is nothing more than that of the refusal at the time of the disposition of this case, and it does not coincide with the original reason for disposition and the basic facts. Thus, the addition of the above reason for disposition cannot be allowed ( even if the identity is recognized between the original reason for disposition and the original reason for disposition, the court of the first instance cannot be deemed to have infringed on the privacy or freedom of private life, and the circumstance of this case can be deemed to have been obtained through the perusal and examination of the documents of this case by the court of the first instance, and thus, it does not constitute an infringement of the public interest or the rights of individuals.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and cancelling the disposition of this case.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ho