1. On November 7, 2018, the attached list among the records of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office 2015 type No. 39625 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the complainant of Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office 2015 type No. 39625, which was suspected of having filed the Plaintiff’s complaint.

On March 31, 2016, the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office (2015 type No. 39625) issued a disposition that the suspect B was innocent on March 31, 2016 (see, e.g., Defendant’s reply 1).

On October 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for perusal and copy of investigation records with respect to the records of the case without type 2015-type and 39625 of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office (attached Form 1-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Official Information Disclosure Act includes the details that the Defendant (the “head of the receiving agency” of the Enforcement Rule of the Official Information Disclosure Act shall be referred to as the “head of the receiving agency”).

C. On November 7, 2018, the Defendant, who was not allowed to peruse and copy part of the investigation records of the Defendant, issued a disposition that the Plaintiff did not grant permission to peruse and copy the case’s personal information (hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”) on the following grounds: each written opinion among the records of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office 2015-type 39625; each investigation direction; each investigation report; each investigation report; each investigation direction recommendation; each investigation result report; each defense counsel’s application; and each document listed in the attached list including the written opinion on the appeal; and the prosecutor’s duty guidelines regarding perusal and copy of the case records; and each document listed in the attached list including the written opinion is likely to seriously undermine the confidentiality of the person concerned (hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”).

(see Evidence A 1). (d)

The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning non-permission disposition of this case are as follows.

A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs of Article 20-2 of the Rules on the Affairs for Preservation of Prosecutors (Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice) shall make an application for perusal and copy of the case records in accordance with attached Forms 5, 5-2 or 5-3: