1. The Defendant’s inspection and copying of each of the documents listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 2, 4, and 6, attached hereto, to the Plaintiff on April 24, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B with the former Jinjin Police Station on the charge of fraud, etc. (Article 2017 type No. 26348 of the former District Prosecutors’ Office; hereinafter “related criminal cases”), but was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by a prosecutor who was affiliated with the former District Prosecutors’ Office (Evidence of Evidence).

B. On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for inspection and copying of each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the relevant criminal case records (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on April 24, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of inspection and copying of each of the documents listed in Articles 22(1)2 through 10 of the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant information”), excluding the documents listed in Article 22(1)2, 4, and 5 of the Rules on the Preservation and Administration of Prosecutors’ Offices, based on Article 22(1)2, 4, and 5 of the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant information”).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). C. The instant disposition of refusing to grant the instant information is deemed to have been rendered.

On June 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office (Administrative Appeals Commissions), but the said commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff's claim on September 12, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition is unlawful as it is based on the Prosecutor’s Office Regulations, which have no legal effect.

B) The Defendant did not prove that the instant information specifically infringes any legal interest or fundamental rights, and rejected the perusal and copying of all investigation records other than the Plaintiff’s written statement on the grounds that it falls under each subparagraph of Article 22 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office. The instant disposition is inappropriate. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is related to the police investigation.