On November 7, 2019, the Defendant’s refusal to disclose information to the Plaintiff is related to each information listed in attached Table 3.

1. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against B and C with the Daegu District Court branch office 2017 punishment No. 9459 (hereinafter “relevant criminal case”) on the grounds that “B and his husband C conspired with the Plaintiff to receive KRW 140,000 from the Plaintiff as a fund for operating clothes store,” and the prosecutor of the public prosecutor’s office issued a non-prosecution disposition against B and C with no suspicion of suspicion around December 20, 2017.

On November 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for a copying of each document listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 in the relevant criminal case records. However, the Defendant permitted copying of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on the same day, and the document listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “information of this case”) stated in the separate sheet No. 2 of the Prosecutor’s Office Regulation No. 22(1)2 on the ground that “the disclosure of records is likely to seriously undermine the honor or privacy of the persons related to the case, or the safety of physical safety or peace in life of the person related to the case, by disclosing records” (hereinafter “instant disposition of non-permission”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office for administrative trial, but the said Committee rejected the Plaintiff’s request on April 24, 2020.

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap's entries in the evidence of Nos. 12 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable to disclose the instant information by falling under “information deemed necessary to remedy an individual’s right” under Article 9(1)6(c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in Appendix 4.

(c)

Judgment

1) Although Article 22 of the Rules on the Administrative Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutions can serve as the basis for the disposition, the Rules on the Administrative Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutions are enacted pursuant to Article 11 of the Prosecutor’s Office Act, the said Rules are more serious.