1. On July 14, 2016, the Defendant excluded the suspect’s personal information from the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information made against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff filed a complaint with B, C, D, E, and F with the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Misappropriation) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Fraud in 2015). However, the prosecutor belonging to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition on May 27, 2015 on the ground that evidence of the above suspected facts was insufficient. The Plaintiff appealed against the complaint and dismissed on August 18, 2015, but the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office issued a reappeal order on December 17, 2015.

The prosecutor belonging to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office decided on June 23, 2016 as the result of the investigation of the case at issue (No. 118040, 2015).

On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the perusal of the records of non-prosecutions on the records of the case No. 118040 in 2015, but the Defendant rejected it on July 12, 2016.

On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the perusal and copy of the non-prosecution case records (hereinafter “information of this case”), excluding the personal information of a third party, for the following reasons: the Defendant rejected the application on July 14, 2016 on the grounds of Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation on July 14, 2016 (the disclosure of records may seriously harm the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, and peace of life of a person involved in the case) and 4 (the disclosure of records is likely to divulge or cause unnecessary new disputes) of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation (the disclosure of records).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff 1's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings, is legitimate, and the rules for prosecution preservation based on the disposition of this case are merely administrative rules, and thus, it cannot be a ground for refusing the plaintiff's request for information disclosure.

b) the Commission;