1. On November 21, 2017, the information subject to disclosure indicated in attached Table 1 among the dispositions of non-permission for inspection and copying rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was investigated as a suspect of defamation and intimidation by the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office 2017 type No. 19382, upon the complaint filed by B.

B submitted “Withdrawal of Complaint” on September 15, 2017 in the foregoing case, and the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition by the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on September 22, 2017.

B. On November 20, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for perusal and copy of the instant written withdrawal of the complaint to the Defendant.

(Reasons for Request: Confirmation of Facts)

On November 21, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for perusal and copying on the ground that “the disclosure of records is likely to seriously harm the honor or privacy of a person involved in the case, or the safety of life and body, or the peace of life, due to the disclosure of records” under Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Even if the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to peruse and copy the written withdrawal of the instant complaint, it is not likely to undermine B’s privacy or peace of life.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Article 11 of the Prosecutor’s Office Act was enacted on the basis of whether the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices can be the legal basis for the instant disposition, but Article 22 of the above Rules, which provides for the restriction on the perusal and copying of the records of non-prosecution cases, merely provides for the internal rules for administrative affairs of the administrative agency due to the absence of specific delegation by the law, is not a legal basis for the instant disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13816 Decided March 12, 2004). C.

The main text of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act is to determine the legality of the instant disposition based on the Official Information Disclosure Act.