1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information against the Plaintiff on November 28, 2017 pertaining to each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff reported to the investigation agency that “the Plaintiff was stolen from the coffee specialty store located in Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin Sin

B. After investigating the instant theft case, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office in the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office issued a non-prosecution disposition of suspending prosecution against C and D on March 18, 2015 on the grounds that C and D were deemed to have stolen the Plaintiff’s wallets, but C and D were the primary offenders, and the Plaintiff’s damage level is relatively minor.

(In the District Public Prosecutor's Office within the District Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2015 type No. 9598, hereinafter "the instant non-prosecution case").

On November 28, 2017, in order to verify the substantive facts of the instant theft case, the Plaintiff filed a claim to the Defendant for the disclosure of information on “the entire records except the Plaintiff’s statement and the documents submitted to the Plaintiff” among the investigation records of the instant non-prosecution case.

(hereinafter “Request for Information Disclosure of this case” refers to “request for Information Disclosure of this case,” and each of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is referred to as “each of the information of this case”).

On November 28, 2017, based on Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Business of the Prosecutor’s Preservation, the Defendant rejected the instant claim for information disclosure on the ground that “the disclosure of records is likely to seriously impair the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, and peace of life of the persons involved in the case, and is likely to divulge confidential information in the investigative method that should be kept confidential or cause unnecessary new disputes.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely an administrative rule, and thus, Article 4(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides for “where other Acts provide for the disclosure of information” or Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act.