1. Of the case records in the former District Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 2011 type No. 6719, the Defendant committed against the Plaintiff on April 11, 2019.

1. On April 11, 2018, the background and content of the disposition filed a request with the Defendant for the inspection and copying of information on the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s act of Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) prepared by the investigative agency in relation to the case in the former District Prosecutors’ Office No. 201-type No. 6719 (hereinafter “B”); and (b) the Defendant’s opinion on criminal facts related to B

Accordingly, the Defendant rejected all of the Plaintiff’s claim for inspection on the same day on the ground that the above information claimed by the Plaintiff falls under Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecution (hereinafter “instant Rules”).

[Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion to revoke the rejection disposition on the part of the Prosecutor’s written opinion prepared by the Defendant on the part of the Prosecutor’s written opinion submitted by the Defendant on the prosecution, and thus, the part of the Prosecutor’s written opinion written by the judicial police officer’s motion is referred to as “the instant information,” and the rejection disposition on the instant information is referred to as “the instant rejection disposition”). 【In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 11 and 12,

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The instant rule, which is a mere administrative rule on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, cannot serve as the basis for refusing to disclose the instant information, and even if the instant information is disclosed, it cannot be deemed that confidential or unnecessary disputes arise. Thus, the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Therefore, the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. The Defendant rendered the instant rejection disposition based on Article 22(1)4 of the instant Rules, but added Article 9(1)4 to the grounds for the instant rejection disposition during the instant lawsuit.

The reasons that the Defendant added as above are the same.