1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-permission on May 2, 2018 regarding the documents listed in the list (attached Form 1) against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with B and C by fraud with the Military Police Station, but B and C received a disposition of non-prosecution on August 29, 2016 from the suspicion of suspicion (defluence of evidence) by the Head of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 2016 type No. 21587).

B. On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to inspect and copy the records of the case No. 2016-type and No. 21587 of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant records”). However, the Defendant allowed the Defendant to inspect and copy only the complaint, the statement of witness, the statement of witness, each specification of transactions, and the certificate of confirmation.

C. On April 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second claim for the Defendant to allow the perusal and copying of the records of this case, and the Defendant, on May 2, 2018 (attached Form 1), refused the perusal and copying of the information listed in the list under Article 22(1)2 and 5 (in the form of internal documents of the investigative agency) of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecution Preservation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition in this case is lawful on the grounds of the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes, the plaintiff asserts that the rules of prosecutor's office that the defendant cited on the grounds of rejection of the plaintiff's request for inspection and copying are merely administrative rules, and thus, the disposition in this case restricting the plaintiff'

B. The entry in the relevant statutes (attached Form 3) is as follows.

C. Although the rules on prosecutorial preservation affairs were enacted by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice pursuant to Article 11 of the Prosecutor’s Office Act, Article 22 of the said rules, which provides for the restriction on reading and copying of the records of non-prosecutions, merely provides administrative rules within the administrative agency with no legal basis for delegation, the restriction on reading and copying under Article 22 of the said Rules does not exceed the Official Information Disclosure Act.