1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 10, 2014, Party B was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for the crime of attempted murder on May 10, 2014, and is currently confined in the previous prison, and the Plaintiff is the mother of Party B.

B. On November 3, 2017, B assaulted C in a conflict with a correctional officer C on November 3, 2017, and B was subject to pressure by correctional officers.

C. On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on CCTV images “at the time of an accident on November 3, 2017.” (2) On November 22, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision based on Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the grounds that the disclosure of the data is likely to considerably impede the efficient execution of the duties to accommodate and manage correctional institutions due to the scope of filming, methods of operation of CCTV, and exposure to unauthorized areas where the data were recorded and lost or leaked.

On January 18, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the CCTV images on November 3, 2017, and the DNA disciplinary CCTV images from November 3, 2017 to November 13, 2017. However, the Defendant made a non-disclosure decision on January 25, 2017 (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”).

E. On January 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the visual images of a DNA camp taken by a correctional officer F on November 3, 2017, which was January 18, 2018. (2) In the case of a correctional institution on January 29, 2018, the Defendant is due to the exposure to an unfavorable correctional institution in the case of video equipment recorded in a correctional institution with an important national security facility.