1. The Defendant’s personal information pertaining to an individual’s refusal disposition against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B died on April 3, 2014, and the Defendant, on June 11, 2014, concluded B’s case as a crashed death, on the grounds that it was impossible to discover the criminal charges due to the results of the appraisal by the National Institute of Science and Technology and the witness’s statement, etc.

B. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for the disclosure of information regarding the following information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) among the investigation records in the case B, on November 3, 2014, the Defendant made a non-disclosure and partial disclosure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the investigation records for which the Plaintiff applied to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014: (a) the content of the statement by the person subject to investigation (C); (b) the content of the first reporter’s report; (c) the prosecutor in charge’s order for reexamination and search; (iv) the investigation completion (including the cause of death); and (e) the prosecutor in charge filed a request with the Plaintiff for the disclosure of information on November 3, 2014:

1) Details of the statement made by the person subject to investigation (C): C requested non-disclosure on the ground of invasion of privacy and the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

) The content of the statement at the first reporter’s time pursuant to Article 9(1)6: The content of the search and investigation under Article 9(1)3 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act: The content of the witness’s statement is included in the witness’s statement; thus, the content of the closed investigation (including the cause of death) pursuant to Article 9(1)3 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act: The report containing the contents of the investigation is disclosed except personal information that is likely to infringe on an individual’s privacy pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

C. On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion of this case is based on Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 9(1)1 of the same Act

(b)2, 3).