1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, upon suspicion of fraud, filed a complaint against B with Incheon District Prosecutor’s Office No. 2011 type No. 56126, 58012, but the Prosecutor’s Office was not authorized to prosecute part of the complaints against B on October 31, 2011, and was not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (defluence of evidence) by the Prosecutor’s Office.

B. The Plaintiff requested the director of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office to allow perusal and copy of the protocol of statement of reference C prepared by the assistant judicial police officer of the investigation records of the case No. 201-type 56126, 58012 (hereinafter “instant information”). On February 14, 2013, the director of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition of non-permission for perusal and copy pursuant to Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecution’s Office on the grounds that the disclosure of the instant information could seriously harm the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace of life of the person concerned.

(hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”). C.

On May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant non-permission disposition with the Defendant. On September 9, 2013, the Defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the disclosure of the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act on the ground that it is likely to infringe upon the confidentiality or peace of C’s privacy if disclosed.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant adjudication”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, and Gap evidence No. 12, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the ruling of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is necessary for the relief of the Plaintiff’s rights, and the disclosure of the instant information is much more unfavorable than the disadvantage the Plaintiff would incur due to the non-disclosure of the instant information. Thus, the instant non-permission disposition rejecting the perusal and copy of the instant information is unlawful, and the Defendant, who is the ruling authority, is the ruling authority.