1. On October 22, 2019, the Defendant’s “determination” in the attached Table 1 List of Information Claim for Disclosure, which the Plaintiff attached to the Plaintiff, is re-written.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the complainant of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office No. 2015 type No. 43316 (hereinafter “relevant case”).

On February 9, 2017, the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office decided not to prosecute related cases, and the plaintiff's appeal and the application for adjudication were dismissed.

B. On October 11, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for all copies of the relevant case records to the Defendant.

On October 22, 2019, the Defendant issued only a copy of the Plaintiff’s statement and the documents submitted by the Plaintiff among the records related to the instant case to the Plaintiff, and rejected the remainder of the non-permission disposition on the copy of the instant information (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and the main text of Article 9(1)6 of the same Act (where disclosed, as matters pertaining to investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is significantly difficult for the Defendant to perform his/her duties if disclosed) on the grounds that the instant information was not disclosed to the public during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant may infringe on the confidentiality or freedom of privacy, if disclosed, of personal matters, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information.

Recognizing as recognized information, it was specified as information.

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The entries in the attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is legitimate or not, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on October 22, 2019.

The Plaintiff asserted in the Plaintiff’s complaint that “the Defendant did not state the reasons for the disposition on October 22, 2019 in accordance with the disposition form to the Plaintiff.” However, the Defendant, after specifying the reasons for the instant disposition in writing as of January 7, 2020, made a substantial objection as to the existence of the reasons for non-disclosure between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.