1. On December 5, 2016, the Defendant’s records on the case No. 2016-type 11976 at the office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, which was rendered against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a suspect in the case No. 2016-type and No. 11976 of the horizontal Housing Site Office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office. On September 1, 2016, the prosecutor of the horizontal Housing Site Office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office decided to prosecute the instant case without suspicion (defluence of evidence).

B. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a copying of the investigator’s protocol, suspect interrogation protocol, peremptory notice book, statement of inquiry into accident check, and investigation report (related to cashier’s checks) among investigation records of the case No. 2016-type 11976 at the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant records”).

C. On the same day, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to copy the protocol of interrogation, the chief executive officer, and the statement of inquiry into the accident check in the records of this case, and rejected the Plaintiff’s application for copying the Plaintiff’s written statement, the Plaintiff’s investigation report (related to cashier’s checks) and the copy of the investigation report (hereinafter “each of the documents of this case”) on the same day on the ground that “the disclosure of the records is likely to divulge confidential information or cause unnecessary dispute.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

In the litigation proceedings of this case, the defendant is a private person, including the name and resident registration number included in the pertinent information under Article 9(1)3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act"), Article 9(1)4 (where disclosed, the prevention and investigation of crimes, the institution and maintenance of public prosecution, the execution and correction of punishment, and the disposition of security, and where disclosed, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure of the documents of this case is significantly difficult to perform his/her duties or infringe on the right of the criminal defendant to receive a fair trial) and Article 9(1)6 of the same Act.