[1] In a case where the details of statements other than personal information of suspects, etc. entered in the protocol of interrogation of suspects, etc. among non-prosecution records or internal investigation records are likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals, whether such information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9(1)

[2] The method of determining whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary to protect an individual’s rights” under the proviso of Article 9(1)6(c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[3] The purport of Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act stipulating “information pertaining to investigation, which has considerable grounds to believe that if disclosed, it would significantly impede the performance of duties when disclosed,” as one of the information subject to non-disclosure, and the requirements for the written opinion, etc. to constitute the information subject to non-disclosure / In such case, the meaning of “information which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for remarkably obstructing the performance of duties” and the method to determine whether such information constitutes such information

[4] Whether the possibility of a claimant for information disclosure may affect the decision on whether to disclose the information (negative)

[1] The main text of Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides that “personal information, such as names, resident registration numbers, etc. included in the pertinent information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals.” In this context, information subject to non-disclosure includes not only “personal identification information,” such as names, resident registration numbers, etc., but also “personally confidential information, etc., due to disclosure of personal information, etc., is disclosed, and as a result, information that may interfere with personal and mental life or be unable to freely engage in private life.” Therefore, in a non-prosecution disposition record or internal investigation record, the content of statements other than the personal information of the suspect, etc. recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol, etc., constitutes information subject to non-disclosure in cases where it is deemed that there

[2] Article 9(1)6 proviso (c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act excludes “information prepared or acquired by a public institution, which is deemed necessary to protect the public interest or the right of an individual from non-disclosure.” Here, whether the disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary to protect an individual’s right” should be carefully determined by comparing and comparing the interests protected by non-disclosure such as the privacy of an individual and the interests protected by the disclosure of an individual’s right to remedy the individual’s infringement of rights, etc.

[3] Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that “Information subject to non-disclosure, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that it would significantly impede the performance of duties of an investigative agency when disclosed.” The purport of the Act is to prevent disclosure of methods and procedures, etc., from causing considerable difficulty in performing duties of an investigative agency.” Thus, a written opinion, reporting document, camera, legal review, and internal investigation data, etc. (hereinafter “written opinion, etc.”) in investigation records fall under the scope of information requested disclosure. However, the information subject to disclosure does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure as provided by Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act on the ground that it does not immediately fall under a written opinion, etc., and it does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure even if there are reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of methods and procedures, etc., making it considerably difficult for the investigative agency to perform duties by disclosing the relevant written opinion, etc., and thus, constitutes information subject to non-disclosure.” The purpose of the Act is to ensure fair and efficient performance of duties of an investigation.

[4] The purpose of the Official Information Disclosure Act is to guarantee the citizen's right to know and secure the citizen's participation in state affairs and the transparency of state administration (Article 1). The principle of Information Disclosure is declared that information held and managed by a public institution must be actively disclosed in order to guarantee the citizen's right to know (Article 3). All citizens have the right to request information disclosure (Article 5(1)). However, unless information falls under information subject to non-disclosure (Article 9(1)), information held and managed by a public institution is subject to disclosure (Article 9(1)), and there is no special restriction on the purpose of the request for Information Disclosure. Thus, the right to claim information disclosure does not affect the decision on whether to disclose information.

[1] Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Article 9(1)6(c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [3] Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [4] Articles 1, 3, 5(1), and 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Du2361 Decided June 18, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1329) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1342 Decided December 26, 2003 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1424 Decided October 29, 2009 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Du15694 Decided November 27, 2012, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du7048 Decided July 12, 2012, Constitutional Court en banc Decision 94Hun-Ma60 Decided November 27, 1997 (Hun-Ga25, 60)

Plaintiff

Busan District Prosecutors' Office

Busan High Court Decision 2016Nu23103 decided April 26, 2017

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. The main text of Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that “personal information, such as names, resident registration numbers, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, could infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals.” Here, information subject to non-disclosure includes not only “personal identification information, such as names, resident registration numbers, etc., but also “personal confidential information,” the disclosure of which would lead to the disclosure of personal information, etc., and includes “information, such as personal and mental life, or which could interfere with free privacy.” Accordingly, in cases where non-prosecution disposition records or internal investigation records are deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals, matters other than personal information recorded in the protocol, such as suspect interrogation records, etc., are subject to non-prosecution disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012). 200; and, in order to protect personal rights or interests of individuals, the disclosure of information should be determined by comparing 20.

B. In addition, Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “information pertaining to an investigation, which has considerable grounds to believe that disclosure of which would substantially obstruct the performance of duties is one of the information subject to non-disclosure.” The purport of this Act is to prevent the disclosure of methods, procedures, etc. for investigation from causing significant difficulties in performing duties by an investigation agency.” Thus, it may be deemed that an investigation record’s written opinion, reporting document, camera, legal review, internal investigation data, etc. (hereinafter “written opinion, etc.”) falls under the foregoing (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 94Hun-Ma60, Nov. 27, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1342, Dec. 26, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1342, Oct. 27, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2017Du1781, Sept. 27, 2012).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, based on the result of reading and examining the key information of this case in the internal investigation records of this case as non-disclosure, the court below determined that the defendant's non-permission disposition to allow perusal and non-permission to disclose the information of this case other than the aforementioned key information among the key information of this case constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, on the ground that the information of this case constitutes "matters concerning investigation" under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act because it falls under the information of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below, but it is difficult to view that disclosure has considerable reasons to make it considerably difficult for investigation agency to perform its duties. Thus, the court below determined that non-permission to allow perusal and non-permission to disclose the information of this case other than the above key information of this case constitutes non-disclosure information of this case among the key information of this case is unlawful.

3. Examining the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the disclosure of the information on the issue of this case to the public is highly unlikely to remedy the plaintiff's rights.

However, the Information Disclosure Act declares the principle of information disclosure that the purpose of guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration (Article 1), and that information held and managed by public institutions should be actively disclosed in order to guarantee citizens' right to know (Article 3). All citizens have the right to request information disclosure (Article 5(1)), and the information held and managed by public institutions is subject to disclosure unless it does not fall under the information subject to non-disclosure (Article 9(1)). (Article 9(1)) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information held and managed by the public institutions is subject to disclosure (Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act). Since the information disclosure claimant does not have any specific limitation to the purpose of the request for information disclosure or does not have any specific limitation to the purpose

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)