1. Information entered in the attached Form 2 List, which the Defendant reported to the Plaintiff on January 9, 2019, in attached Form 2.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff filed a request for information disclosure with the defendant to copy the information recorded in the attached list 1.

On January 9, 2019, the Defendant rejected the request for copying on the ground that the remaining information (hereinafter referred to as “instant information”) excluding Paragraph 1 (Statement of Complaint) falls under Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecution Affairs.

(2) Article 2(1)2 and 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutorial Affairs (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter “the Rules on the Protection of Information Disclosure”) provides that “The grounds for recognition of Gap’s refusal disposition is legitimate,” and Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Therefore, we judge whether Article 9 (1) 4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act is applicable.

Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information pertaining to "investigation," which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that it would significantly impede the performance of duties, shall be subject to non-disclosure.

The purpose of this study is to prevent the disclosure of methods, procedures, etc. of investigation from causing a significant difficulty in performing the duties of an investigation agency, and thus, it corresponds to written opinions, reporting documents, mail, legal review, internal investigation data, etc. in investigation records.

However, the information subject to disclosure request is not immediately deemed information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act on the ground that it falls under the above written opinion, and it does not immediately mean information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that disclosure of the methods and procedures of investigation, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7048, Jul. 12, 2012). The instant case started upon the Plaintiff’s complaint.