1. The case at Suwon District Prosecutors' Office 2013 type No. 24746, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014, and the same office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff resided in 608 dong 1405, Seongdong-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and was forced to leave his house on the grounds of delinquency in payment of rent, etc., and thereafter was in the above apartment complex. C, the head of the management office of the above apartment complex, removed the above content along with other security guards.

In the process of such removal, the Plaintiff asserted that C was deprived of the Plaintiff’s goods, and filed a complaint against C as larceny with the head of Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office 2013-type 24746, but C was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on September 23, 2013 (Evidence of Evidence).

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Sung-nam District Prosecutors’ Office 2013 and 478 to request a re-investigation against C, but was closed on February 4, 2014, on the ground that “No new evidence exists to reverse the disposition that the Defendant was guilty of suspicion against C”.

C. On August 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for inspection and copying of the entire records of the case No. 2013 type No. 24746 of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office and No. 2013 type No. 478 of the same Administration (hereinafter “instant records”).

On August 7, 2014, the Defendant rejected the inspection and copying of the entire record of the instant case on the ground that “the disclosure of the records under Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutor’s Office is likely to divulge confidential information in the investigative method to be kept confidential or cause unnecessary new disputes.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. We examine whether the defendant may refuse the plaintiff's request for inspection and copying of the records of this case under Article 22 of the Rules of the Prosecution Preservation Affairs.

Although the rules for the preservation of prosecutor's office are enacted by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice based on Article 11 of the Prosecutor's Office Act, all provisions within the same rules alone.