1. On March 16, 2017, the Defendant excluded attached Table 1 confidential information from the disposition of refusing to allow the Plaintiff to inspect and copy the case records.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, fraud, and embezzlement with punishment No. 66090 by Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office”), but the prosecutor in charge decided on March 10, 2017 that the above case was suspected (Evidence of Evidence).

B. On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for the disclosure of information under subparagraph 2 of Article 22 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20100, Mar. 16, 2017) on the grounds that the record of the case at issue constitutes a reason for non-disclosure as stipulated in Article 22 subparag. 2 of the said Rules (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20148, Mar. 16, 2017) and subparag. 4 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Mar. 15, 2017) on the grounds that the disclosure of the record constitutes a reason for disclosure of confidential information of the method of investigation, which shall be kept confidential due to the disclosure of the record, or that the disclosure of the record is likely to cause unnecessary disputes (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition, and the Defendant added Article 9 Subparag. 3, 4, and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act to the grounds for non-disclosure of the instant information to the grounds for non-disclosure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legality of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not require the disclosure of an individual’s privacy to verify the right investigation by an investigative agency, but should be disclosed with the exception of the part relating to the individual’s privacy, and in this respect the appeal procedure against the case.