1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the information listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 1 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s act on January 2013

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant for copying each information recorded in the separate sheet No. 2010-type and No. 73687 of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant criminal records”) to the effect that the disclosure and copying of each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 among the case records (hereinafter “instant criminal records”).

B. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s disclosure on the ground that “the information subject to the instant application contains other person’s personal information, thereby disclosing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) may infringe on other person’s privacy or freedom.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the part of the instant lawsuit concerning the claim for the information listed in [Attachment 1] List 3 is legitimate ex officio, among the instant lawsuit, as to whether the claim for the information listed in [Attachment 1] List 3 is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by public institutions in its state, it is sufficient to prove that it is highly probable that a person seeking information disclosure will hold and manage the information that is sought by administrative agencies.

However, if a public institution fails to retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006). The health team for the instant case, the information for which the Plaintiff applied for a copying is each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as recognized earlier. Here, “B, C, and D Police Prosecutor’s Statements” means a written statement prepared by B, C, and D under investigation by an investigative agency, or a protocol of examination prepared by an investigative agency.