1. On December 10, 2014, the Defendant’s prosecution against the Plaintiff is not instituted against the Defendant’s Sung-nam District Prosecutors’ Office 2012 type No. 17083.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with B and C with an investigation agency on the charge of fraud, and the prosecutor affiliated with the branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office was a non-prosecution disposition (No. 2012 type No. 17083, the branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office) that had no suspicion against the suspects of the instant case.

B. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information regarding the entirety of the investigation records of the instant case described in the said paragraph (hereinafter “investigation records”). Accordingly, the Defendant rejected the claim on December 10, 2014 on the ground that the remainder of the investigation records of the instant case, except the Plaintiff’s statement documents and documents submitted, falls under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Of the investigation records of this case, the part concerning the information of this case as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article among the investigation records of this case (hereinafter “information of this case”) does not fall under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the part concerning the information of this case among the disposition of this case should be revoked illegally.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1) In full view of the contents of Article 3 and the main text of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, the information held and managed by a public institution is subject to disclosure, unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9(1) proviso of the same Act. Thus, whether the instant information falls under the proviso of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act should be examined. (A) Whether the instant information falls under the proviso of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act and the Information Disclosure Act should be examined, and the information held and managed by the public