1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information to the Plaintiff on April 2, 2019 shall be revoked.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff filed a request for information disclosure with the Defendant to copy all records on the case No. 2018-type No. 5189 of the Seocho District Prosecutors' Office, which the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant.

On April 2, 2019, the Defendant rejected the request for copying on the ground that the information listed in the [Attachment 1] List (hereinafter “instant information”) falls under Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecution Affairs.

(hereinafter "the rejection disposition of this case"). 【The grounds for recognition - Gap's evidence 1 and whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate as a whole as a whole.

A. The Defendant, based on Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutory Affairs, issued the instant rejection disposition, but asserts that such disposition falls under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Therefore, we judge whether Article 9 (1) 4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act is applicable.

B. Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information pertaining to an investigation, which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to recognize that the performance of duties would significantly be difficult, shall be subject to non-disclosure.

The purpose of this study is to prevent the disclosure of methods, procedures, etc. of investigation from causing a significant difficulty in performing the duties of an investigative agency, and thus, it corresponds to written opinions, reporting documents, mail, legal review, internal investigation data, etc. in investigation records.

However, the information subject to disclosure request is not immediately deemed information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act on the ground that it falls under the above written opinion, but it does not immediately constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the same Act, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the disclosure of the methods and procedures of investigation, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7048, Jul. 12, 2012).