1. On January 26, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of refusing to allow the Plaintiff to inspect and copy the documents listed in the attached Table 1 as against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office for the crime of causing property damage to B and C, but, on July 25, 2017, B, etc. was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the D Prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office to the effect that he/she was guilty.

The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Gwangju High Prosecutors' Office, but the application for the adjudication was also dismissed.

B. On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the perusal of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 2017-type No. 26015 of the records of the case No. 2015 of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant information”).

C. On January 26, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s inspection and copying in accordance with Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices (which could divulge confidential information in the investigative method to be kept confidential due to the disclosure of records or cause unnecessary disputes).

(D) In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s act on the disclosure of information of this case as a ground for non-disclosure (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) is the same as the grounds for non-disclosure of the instant information.

Article 9(1)4 (information pertaining to an investigation, which has a reasonable ground to believe that the performance of duties would significantly be difficult if disclosed) was added. [The fact that there is no ground for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of all pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The rules of prosecutorial preservation affairs, which are merely the administrative rules of the Plaintiff’s assertion, cannot be the basis for the instant disposition. The instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition against it is unlawful.

(b) Attached Form 3 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The instant disposition based on the Rules on the One Prosecution Preservation Affairs is lawful, and Article 9(1) proviso 1 of the Information Disclosure Act is confidential or confidential by an order delegated by law.