Plaintiff (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Kim Jong-san, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Chief Prosecutor of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office

May 28, 2014

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap34181 Decided November 12, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Of the investigation records of non-prosecutions against the Plaintiff (No. 2011 type No. 51958), the Defendant’s non-disclosure decision on August 31, 2012, as to the number of pages 13 to 37, 43 to 48 (each of the interrogation records against the Nonparty) (excluding the non-party’s personal information) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the defendant's assertion and judgment.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

(a) A captain;

The instant information contains a large number of sensitive information related to a criminal case, so it is likely that the investigative method may be disclosed or the Nonparty may file a claim or civil petition, and there is a concern that the prosecutor’s office may make it difficult to perform its duties. Therefore, the instant information constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(b) Markets:

Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides as one of the information subject to non-disclosure, the disclosure of which has considerable grounds to recognize that the performance of duties would significantly be difficult if disclosed. The purport of this Act is to prevent the disclosure of methods, procedures, etc. of an investigation. As such, written opinions, reporting documents, mail, legal review, internal investigation data, etc. in the investigation records shall be deemed to fall under such scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1342, Dec. 26, 2003, etc.).

However, the instant information is not likely to be disclosed as a suspect of suspect interrogation because its nature is different from the above written opinion, and it is difficult to view it as information that could be disclosed in principle, and the Defendant did not make specific arguments or prove it.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that it is considerably difficult for the investigation agency to perform its duties on the sole basis of the Nonparty’s resistance or possibility of filing a civil petition.

The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Justices Choi Jong-chul (Presiding Justice) Kim Tae-ho Kim Gyeong-hwan