1. On October 27, 2016, the Defendant’s Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 25900), among dispositions rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff on October 27, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against B with the Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 25900 of the Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office, 2014), and the Prosecutor of the Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 25900 of the Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office), on May 29, 2015, issued a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that he/she was guilty (Evidence insufficient) against B.

(2) The Plaintiff filed a complaint and re-appeal against the disposition of non-prosecution, but all of which were dismissed.

B. On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of information by the electromagnetic wave method with respect to “documents, evidence, and statements, etc. related to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant information”) among the information except the documents, evidence, and relevant documents submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in relation to the instant case.”

C. On October 27, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting disclosure of the information requested by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff on the ground that the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and Article 3(1) of the Guidelines on the Inspection and Copying of Records, which are established by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, constitutes information subject to non-disclosure (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Defendant added the grounds for the disposition to the effect that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act through a written response.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the investigation of the plaintiff 1's assertion B by the parties had been completed, it is not significantly difficult for the defendant to perform his/her duties even if he/she discloses the instant information.

Furthermore, even if some of the information of this case is subject to non-disclosure, the defendant shall be exempted from the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act.