1. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission to inspect and copy the documents listed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding the fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of an investigation document. The Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office transferred the case to the Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor’s Office.

On October 10, 2016, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution disposition to the effect that he/she was not guilty.

The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, but dismissed the application for the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office.

B. On June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to inspect and copy the records of the case No. 2016-type and No. 29826 of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant records”).

C. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to inspect and copy the complaint, vehicle entry certificate, parking fee confirmation, written judgment, written opinion, CD, complaint, notice on the result of the settlement of the case, and the written statement of the Plaintiff, among the records in the instant case, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s inspection and copying in accordance with Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation and Management of Public Prosecution (the disclosure of the records is likely to seriously undermine the honor, privacy, safety of life, and peace of life of the party concerned, or the peace of life). However, with respect to internal documents of the investigative agency, the Plaintiff’s inspection and copying may be denied pursuant to Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Public Prosecutor’s Preservation and Management of Public Prosecutor’s Office (the disclosure of the records is likely to cause any divulgence

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case. Information of this case’s refusal of inspection and copying in the records of this case is as shown in the separate sheet No. 1, hereinafter “instant information”). D.

In the case of this case, the defendant is a non-disclosure ground for the information of this case, and the prosecutor's office's office work rules are applied when the defendant made statements other than the plaintiff and rejected the inspection of documents.