1. The defendant's refusal to disclose information against the plaintiff on November 3, 2017 to each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with C, the president of the BAD, who had been employed as an instructor, on the charge that “the Plaintiff stolen the materials from the C in the BAD located in Silung-si around November 2012, 2012.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant case”). (b)

The prosecutor of the District Prosecutors' Office inside the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office investigated the instant case of complaint, and conducted a non-prosecution disposition on April 30, 2013 against the plaintiff.

(No. 2013-type No. 17765, hereinafter referred to as the “instant non-prosecution case”) within the District Prosecutors’ Office.

On November 3, 2017, in order to verify the substantive factual relations of the instant accusation case, the Plaintiff filed a claim to the Defendant for the disclosure of information on “the entire records except the documents submitted to the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) and the documents submitted by the principal” among the investigation records of the instant non-prosecution case.

(hereinafter “Request for Information Disclosure of this case” refers to “request for Information Disclosure of this case,” and each of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is referred to as “each of the information of this case”).

On November 3, 2017, the Defendant rejected the instant claim for the disclosure of information on the ground that “the disclosure of records would cause any divulgence of confidential information in the investigative method or unnecessary dispute, which shall be kept confidential due to the disclosure of records,” based on Article 22 subparag. 4 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecution Preservation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1) Prosecution’s Office Rules are merely administrative rules and do not constitute “where there are special provisions in other Acts with respect to disclosure of information” under Article 4(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) or “an order delegated by other Acts or subordinate statutes” under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant information disclosure is based on this.