1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court should explain by the court of first instance are as follows, except for the case where the defendant added a judgment on the argument that the defendant emphasizes in particular or unsatisfyed, the reasons why the court of first instance should accept it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The statement or materials presented in relation to the Defendant’s alleged criminal charge in itself is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life. Accordingly, it constitutes a non-disclosure subject.

B. In light of the legislative history, content, and purport of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and the contents of the freedom of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main text of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act should include not only “personal identification information” that determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as name, resident registration number, etc., under the former Information Disclosure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7127, Jan. 29, 2004) but also “personal identification information” that determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as the name, resident registration number, etc., of the former Information Disclosure Act. As a result, the disclosure of personal information constitutes “information that may interfere with a personal and mental life or be unable to lead to a free privacy.”

Therefore, the contents of statements other than personal information of suspects, etc. recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol, etc. among the records of non-prosecution disposition, are likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361 Decided June 18, 2012). Evidence adopted by the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, cited by this judgment, is the evidence.