1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim added by this court is dismissed.

3. Costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as to the plaintiff's argument added in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed a complaint against C, D, and E (the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office Y, the Z after the date, Z; hereinafter “the complaint case”), respectively, through the exclusion of criminal justice from criminal justice.

A copy of each of the above documents submitted by the plaintiff was received after filing an application for a copy of the case records. It was found that it was not a document submitted and received at each of the above dates.

At the time, Defendant B, the investigative prosecutor, did not bind each of the above files in the investigation records, and did not enter them in the record list, so it became impossible for the Plaintiff to find out where the above files were destroyed or where they were destroyed.

As a result, since the plaintiff's right to inspect and copy each of the above complaints was violated, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff 10 million won and damages for delay.

B. In light of the above, it is insufficient to find that Defendant B, the investigation prosecutor of the case of complaint, did not bind the above written complaint in the investigation records, did not enter it in the record list, or did not illegally bound or discarded it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.