[2] In a case where the chief of the competent police station rendered a non-disclosure decision as to Gap's application for disclosure of information to disclose the details received by police officers during the internal audit process of the accusation case on the charge of neglecting duties on the grounds of Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to non-disclosure information under Article 9 (1) 5 of the above Act, which held that the above explanatory note does not

[2] In a case where the chief of the competent police station rendered a non-disclosure decision as to Gap's application for disclosure of information, which requires the disclosure of statements received by police officers during the internal audit process of a criminal charge of neglecting duties, on the grounds under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter "Information Disclosure Act"), the court held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to information subject to non-disclosure in light of the above circumstances and process, including the process of questioning Gap's complaint case, and the legislative purport of information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act, on the ground that it is highly probable that disclosure of the report will seriously obstruct the performance of the same duties in the future, and without considering what changes may result in the performance of duties, such circumstance does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act.

1. In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative purport of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) such as matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, examination, regulation, tendering contracts, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc., which are prescribed as information subject to non-disclosure, the term “information which has considerable grounds to be recognized as significantly impeding the fair performance of duties” means the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative purport of Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, where it is highly probable that the fair performance of duties would seriously interfere with the objective of the information subject to non-disclosure. Accordingly, the determination should be made carefully in accordance with specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests protected by non-disclosure such as the fairness of duties, the guarantee of citizens’ right to know, the participation of citizens in government affairs, and the securing of transparency in government affairs (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du12946, Aug. 22, 2003).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that, on August 208, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 of the Sungdong Police Station’s ○○○ District Police Station filed a complaint with the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, upon receiving the Plaintiff’s complaint from the Defendant, failed to properly conduct the investigation; (b) destroyed evidence on another’s criminal case by failing to return smells voluntarily received from the Plaintiff; and (c) Nonparty 4, a police officer affiliated with the Sungdong Police Station, received a written petition from the above police officers and gave rise to non-disclosure on the part of Nonparty 5, who is suspected of being a suspect, and dependent only on the statement of their relatives; and (d) it was difficult to view the Plaintiff’s information disclosure statement to the effect that the Defendant had no reason to inform the relevant police officers of the fact that the Plaintiff had been able to disclose the information disclosure statement on the grounds for non-disclosure during the investigation process, including the Plaintiff’s request to disclose the information disclosure statement to the Defendant.

However, such judgment of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant did not submit the report of this case from the relevant police officers in the course of the direct investigation of the plaintiff's complaint case, but submitted it during the internal audit process. The defendant requested the relevant police officers to investigate the case on several occasions on September 5, 2008 by requesting the investigation team of the North Korean Provincial Police Agency to investigate the case by submitting a petition to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on November 17, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20614, Jul. 19, 2008>

In light of these facts in light of the above legal principles, when comprehensively considering the legislative purport of information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, including the details and process of the written explanation of the instant case, it would be highly probable that if the written explanation of the instant case is disclosed, it will seriously interfere with the performance of the same kind of work in the future.

Therefore, prior to determining whether the instant explanatory note constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, the lower court should closely compare and compare the benefits protected by non-disclosure of the instant explanatory note with the interests protected by disclosure, such as the fairness of the performance of duties, the right to know of the people, the right of citizens to participate in the state affairs, and the transparency of state administration, etc., with respect to the disclosure of the instant explanatory note, which may affect the persons subject to non-disclosure in the future, and thereby, may cause any change in the performance of duties, and the details of the information that the Defendant provided through response to the Plaintiff’s complaint during the internal audit process, and the information acquired by the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of investigation records.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)