1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff on July 8, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information with the Defendant to disclose all of the case records of petition case No. 2013 District Prosecutors’ Office 2013 Petition No. 4 (hereinafter “instant case records”) in the form of copies and output.

On July 8, 2013, the Defendant refused to disclose the relevant part of the records of this case on the ground that the part of the records of this case, excluding the documents made and submitted by the Plaintiff and the part of the notice issued by the Defendant, constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 3(4) of the Work Process Guidelines Concerning Perusal and Copy of Case Records, and Article 22(1)5 of the Rules on the Prosecutor’s Preservation Affairs

The plaintiff asserts that the information subject to the rejection disposition of this case does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter "Information Disclosure Act"), and that the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful, since the information subject to the rejection disposition of this case does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter "Information Disclosure Act") is the ground for recognition / [the grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence 1 and the purport of the whole argument of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the part that is not disclosed to the plaintiff is legitimate because it is highly probable that it will interfere with the fair and efficient performance of investigation duties when disclosed, with reference materials or opinions of investigators prepared in accordance with the investigation techniques or the investigation direction system, and that it refuses the plaintiff's application for disclosure of information pursuant to Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 22 (1) 5 of the Rules on the Public Prosecutor's Preservation Affairs, which embodys the aforementioned provisions.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

First of all, it is examined whether the defendant can refuse the plaintiff's request for information disclosure based on the rules on prosecutor's office affairs or guidelines on inspection and copy.

Prosecution preservation service rules, which are the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, are.