1. On April 4, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to inspect and copy the documents listed in the attached Table 1 as against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2016-type 9087 by asserting that C, who had been in in the relationship with the Plaintiff’s spouse B, expressed the Plaintiff’s desire to do so, and “A knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.” However, C was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on March 30, 2016 without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence)

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Changwon Branch of Busan High Prosecutor's Office No. 2016 High Prosecutor's Office No. 510 and is currently in progress.

C. On April 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to inspect and copy the entire records of the case No. 2016-type No. 9087 at the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office.

On April 4, 2016, the Defendant permitted the perusal and copying of the Plaintiff’s written complaint and the Plaintiff’s written statement. On the other hand, the Defendant rejected the inspection and copying on the ground that the disclosure of the remaining parts (hereinafter “instant records”) records under Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices may seriously harm the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, and peace of life of a person involved in the instant case due to the disclosure of the records under Article 2(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices.

The "disposition of Non-permission for Inspection and Copying" is the Disposition of this case.

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion may not allow the Plaintiff’s claim for perusal and copy of the instant records on grounds of Article 22 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecution, and the instant records do not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim shall be disclosed for remedy of the Plaintiff’s rights.

(b)as shown in Appendix 3 of the relevant statutes.