1. The defendant's records of the case No. 85310 of the Incheon District Prosecutor's Office against the plaintiff on June 30, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Although Nonparty B filed a complaint against the Plaintiff as a crime of fraud (Case Number Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office 2008 punishment No. 85310), the Plaintiff was suspected of having been issued a non-prosecution disposition on September 18, 2008 (defluence of evidence).

B. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for the perusal and copy of the records of the said criminal case (hereinafter “the records of this case”) (a written opinion, written opinion, written statement, written statement of the complainant, written statement of the complainant, written notice of attendance, written statement of the criminal investigation report, C’s investigation results report, written statement of investigation direction, written statement of criminal investigation direction, written reasons for appeal, written statement of reasons for appeal, written statement of reasons for appeal, written statement of the investigation report (written statement of the counter party B), written decision).

C. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant rejected the inspection and copying of the entire records of this case on the ground of Article 22 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation on the ground that, without specifying the specific non-disclosure information, the Defendant did not allow the inspection and copying of the entire records of this case on the ground that “the disclosure of records may seriously harm the reputation or privacy of the persons involved in this case

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the administrative rules of the prosecution cannot serve as the basis for the disposition of this case. The records of this case do not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter "Information Disclosure Act"), and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Although the Rules on the 1st Prosecution Preservation Affairs are governed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, the part that limits the perusal and copying of the records of non-prosecutions, among them, is an internal administrative rule for administrative affairs without any ground for delegation.