1. On January 30, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of non-prosecution to inspect and copy the records of non-prosecution case issued to the Plaintiff on January 30, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B for fraud.

On January 22, 2018, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter "Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office") issued a disposition of non-prosecution of suspicion (defluence of evidence).

B. On January 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for perusal and copying of a suspect interrogation protocol (hereinafter “instant information”) with the Defendant in the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office’ Office (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office”) in the records of Articles 45683, but the Defendant rejected perusal and copying on January 30, 2018 pursuant to Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Military Prosecution Preservation Affairs (the disclosure of records is likely to seriously undermine the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace of life of a person involved in the instant case).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff appealed on the non-prosecution disposition, but was dismissed on March 30, 2018, and the reappeal was dismissed on June 27, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is likely to infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom of privacy if the instant information is disclosed. Thus, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

B. Even if the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s perusal and copy on the ground of Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecution, Article 22(1)2 of the said Rules does not seem to be different from Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. Since the Defendant presented Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act as a non-disclosure ground in the instant lawsuit, it is deemed that the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

1. The name, resident registration number, etc. included in the information in Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act as one of the information subject to non-disclosure.