1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant stated in attached Form 1, which was against the plaintiff on May 30, 2019.

Details of the disposition

A. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to the charge of defamation and was subject to a disposition of having no authority to institute a public prosecution on March 21, 2017 by the Do which was investigated by the Gangwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office (Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office 2016 penal code 14727).

B. The Plaintiff filed a request for inspection and copy of the instant written opinion included in the records of the instant case, but the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on May 30, 2019 on the ground of Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation and Administration (where the disclosure of records might reveal confidential information in the investigative method to be kept confidential or unnecessary dispute may arise).

C. In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant added Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (where disclosed, referring to the information pertaining to the investigation, which is reasonably deemed difficult to perform his/her duties), and Article 9(1)6 of the same Act (where disclosed, referring to the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information), as grounds for non-disclosure of the instant written opinion, to the instant lawsuit.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and validity of the disposition in this case as a whole

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Rules on the Administration of the Prosecutor’s Office, which is merely the Plaintiff’s administrative rules, cannot be deemed the grounds for the instant disposition. The instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, is unlawful. The instant disposition contrary thereto is legitimate. 2) The Defendant’s disposition was based on Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the Plaintiff has filed a request for perusal and copy of the instant written opinion for more than two years after the non-prosecution disposition.