The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. According to the court below's ex officio decision on the plaintiff's appeal, the court of first instance accepted part of the plaintiff's claim to revoke the non-disclosure decision of this case. The plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff was submitted, but the court of first instance ordered the plaintiff to dismiss the petition of appeal on June 17, 201 because the plaintiff failed to comply with the order to correct recognition and delivery fees, and the above order became final and conclusive around that time. Thus, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of first instance is excluded from the subject of the appellate court's judgment, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is unlawful as it

2. Judgment on the defendant's appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) should include not only “personal identification information” that determines whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as name and resident registration number, but also “personal identification information” that determines whether the disclosure of personal information leads to disclosure of confidential information, etc., and as a result, “information that may interfere with personal and mental internal life or are likely to interfere with free privacy.”

Therefore, the contents of statements other than personal information of suspects, etc. written in the suspect interrogation protocol, etc. among the records of non-prosecution disposition, if it is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals, it shall be deemed non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361 Decided June 18, 2012). (2) The record reveals that E’s statement excluding personal identification information, such as name and resident registration number, among the suspect interrogation records of E.