The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff is a prisoner who is currently confined in the Gwangju prison, for whom a sentence of 20 years has become final and conclusive by imprisonment for attempted murder, etc.

B. On October 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request for the disclosure of information with respect to the detailed criteria and implementation status (including applicable statutes; hereinafter “instant information”) related to the restriction on meeting of counsel for the U.S. appointed counsel (hereinafter “instant information”). On October 18, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to disclose information to the Plaintiff with the content of disclosure under Articles 84 and 88 of the Act on the Execution of Punishment and the Settlement of Prisoners’ Status (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff raised an objection on October 21, 2019 on the ground that the instant disposition was a disposition of non-disclosure. However, the Defendant rejected the said objection on the ground that the disclosure decision was already made on October 26, 2019.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the defendant, on November 14, 2019 where the lawsuit in this case is pending, opened to the public the "Public Opinion of the Ministry of Justice dated April 2, 2013, which contains the following: (a) the defendant's appointment of counsel instructed to the plaintiff on November 14, 2019, and the direction for restriction on the non-submission of meeting is controversial; (b) the defendant's non-submission of meeting is not permitted even in the case of failing to submit a written appointment at the time of application for meeting; (c) the plaintiff refused to receive the above document, and submitted it to the plaintiff on June 23, 2020; and (d) again, on the same day, the plaintiff received it on the same day."

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings (including each reference material)

2. As the Defendant’s judgment on the instant safety defense disclosed all of the instant information, it is alleged that the instant lawsuit is unlawful. As such, the Defendant had already disclosed the instant information to the Plaintiff.