The defendant's disposition of non-permission on June 17, 2020 to allow the plaintiff to inspect and copy each information listed in attached Form 1 List 1.

Details of the disposition

On December 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul Songpa Police Station on suspicion of fraud, false facts, defamation, and attack, etc.

(hereinafter “relevant criminal cases”) the criminal case commenced upon the Plaintiff’s complaint was transferred to the Seoul Dong-dong Police Station on December 26, 2019.

On December 31, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal of a complaint to the Seoul Sungdong Police Station.

On January 2, 2020, the judicial police officers of the Seoul Sung-dong Police Station sent criminal cases related to the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office, and on January 7, 2020, the prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office, who belongs to the Seoul Dong Police Office, issued a non-prosecution disposition by dismissal.

On June 12, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office for the disclosure of information on "written opinions, written statements, written statements, investigation reports (written statements), investigation reports (written statements), case transfer documents (written suspect documents), and report on investigation results" in the relevant criminal case records in the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office.

On June 17, 2020, the Defendant permitted disclosure of some information, and rejected the disposition of reading and copying on the ground that each information listed in attached Table 1 List 1 falls under the grounds prescribed in Articles 22(1)5, 20-2(s) and 22(1)4(s) of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices (i.e., “documents containing the statement of the principal or documents submitted by the principal’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s statement”

(2) Of the above dispositions, the Prosecutorial Preservation Affairs Rules, which are merely the administrative rules of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the entire purport of the pleadings, cannot be deemed as the grounds for the disposition of this case. (3) The Defendant’s refusal of the inspection and copying among the above dispositions, is without dispute. (4) [Grounds for recognition], each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Attached Table 1 of the defendant's argument.