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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the defendant as to the defendant's assertion is added following the first instance court's 5th 9th decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the additional decision, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information against the prosecutors' office, prison, and the National Police Agency, which is currently in confinement in the Daejeon Prison, and that the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information is unlawful as abuse of rights, since the plaintiff undergoes the citizen's right to know even though there is no benefit to obtain it through such request.

However, in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the basic factual relations are deemed identical with the original grounds for the disposition. The identity of the basic factual relations here is determined based on the specific facts before the legal evaluation of the grounds for the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 201). The defendant's assertion of abuse of rights cannot be identical with the original grounds for the disposition under Article 9 (1) 6 of the former Information Disclosure Act, which is the initial grounds for the disposition, and thus, it is not allowed to add the above grounds for disposition.

In addition, in light of the purpose, contents, and purport of the Information Disclosure Act, it cannot be deemed that there is a special limitation to the purpose of a request for information disclosure, and thus, barring special circumstances, such as the request for information disclosure for the purpose of inducing the defendant, the request for information disclosure cannot be deemed an abuse of right

Supreme Court Decision 204.14