1. On May 2, 2017, the part of the phone number of the respondent in the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2015-type 42 on the charge of attempted murder (hereinafter “related criminal cases”), and the prosecutor in charge rejected the disposition on the ground that the details of the complaint and relevant documents alone lack to specify the suspect’s criminal charges and there was a rejection disposition (No. 2014-type 13680 of the same Act) on the same criminal facts.
The plaintiff appealed against this and dismissed on April 20, 2015, and re-appealed on June 15, 2015.
B. On April 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the disclosure of information with respect to the investigation report of the relevant criminal case to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant information”).
C. On May 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the ground that the instant information constitutes “information pertaining to an individual and deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 6-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is already aware of the name and contact point of the respondent's information of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's disclosure of the information of this case is unlikely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life of the respondent.
In addition, the information of this case includes the statement of the respondent who filed a complaint with the plaintiff as the victim, and the plaintiff needs to know the contents of the information of this case in order to relieve his rights.
Therefore, the instant disposition based on Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is unlawful.
B. The defendant's allegation 1 of this case refers to the contact point of the respondent.