1. Non-permission of the Defendant’s inspection and copying of each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto against the Plaintiff on October 7, 2015.

1. Objects of adjudication of this Court;

A. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against “the Daegu Police Office for the Prosecutor of the District Prosecutors’ Office” seeking revocation of the non-permission disposition on each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and the first instance court rendered a judgment revoking the non-permission disposition on the remaining part of the above disposition, excluding the part corresponding to the information subject to non-permission

B. The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the Plaintiff, at the trial of the first instance, filed an application for change of the Defendant with the Defendant to rectify the Defendant as the head of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office from “the Prosecutor of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office” to the head of the Daegu Prosecutors’ Office,” and this court rendered a decision to permit the Defendant’s correction on November 22, 2016

C. According to Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, if the plaintiff mistakenly designated the defendant and permitted the correction of the defendant by the court, the lawsuit against the new defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted at the time of the first lawsuit, and since the lawsuit against the previous defendant shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, the lawsuit against the prosecutor of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office against which the judgment of the first instance was rendered is deemed to have been withdrawn (the first instance judgment against the previous prosecutor of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office was invalidated accordingly), and the claim as stated in the purport of the claim against the head of the new defendant Daegu District Prosecutors' Office is subject to the adjudication of this court.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for inspection and copying of each of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant information”) in the records of the fraud case against the 2011-No. 4256 of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office, which was subject to the disposition of non-prosecution by the Plaintiff against the charge (defluence of evidence) after having filed a complaint against the Defendant.

B. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant’s disclosure of the Plaintiff’s records under Article 22(1)5 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices is inappropriate.