[1] The standard for determining whether disclosure constitutes “information deemed necessary for the public interest” under the former Information Disclosure Act

[2] Whether information about a letter of amnesty issued by a person subject to amnesty and related data on the agenda of the State Council constitutes grounds for non-disclosure under the former Official Information Disclosure Act (negative)

[1] Whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest” under the proviso of Article 7(1)6(c) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004), should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of individuals protected by non-disclosure such as the protection of their privacy and the public interest such as securing transparency in state administration protected by the disclosure.

[2] Since the benefits from disclosure of a letter of amnesty and the information on the agenda of the State Council related thereto are greater than the benefits of the parties whose privacy is infringed upon, it does not constitute a reason for non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004).

[1] Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) / [2] Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) / [3] Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) / [3]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425 delivered on March 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 997) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8381 Delivered on May 30, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 173) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8050 Delivered on December 12, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 173)

A democratic society-oriented attorney-at-law meeting (Attorney Ansan-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Justice

Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8827 Delivered on December 11, 2003

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu23143 delivered on November 26, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 7(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”) provides that one of the information subject to non-disclosure “personally identifiable information by name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information” (hereinafter “personal personally identifiable information”) shall be excluded from “information that is prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of an individual.” Here, whether the information constitutes “information whose disclosure is deemed necessary for the public interest” should be determined carefully in accordance with specific matters by comparing and comparing the public interest, such as the privacy protection of an individual protected by the non-disclosure and the public interest such as securing transparency in state administration, which is protected by the disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003; 200Du8538, Dec. 23, 2003).

In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the disclosure of the instant information in light of the nature and reflect society of the crime committed by the parties to the instant information is more likely to infringe on the privacy of the parties, even if the disclosure of the letter of amnesty and the materials on the agenda of the State Council related thereto is likely to infringe on the privacy of the parties, the lower court held that the disclosure of the instant information is more likely to infringe on the privacy of the State and the citizens’ interest in the direction of contributing to the national interest and the national interest in the future, since the disclosure of the instant information is a highly political act, not to deny the right of amnesty itself as a political act, but rather to allow the free political will of the people to check the abuse of private amnesty, which is likely to arise because the disclosure of the instant information in light of the nature and importance of the crime committed by the parties to the instant information, and that the disclosure of the instant information in light of the critical public opinion pointed out and the materials on the bill of amnesty and the materials on the news that were published by the Ministry of Justice at the time of amnesty, and that it is more likely to infringe on the national interest of the State.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 6 of the former Information Disclosure Act, such as the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)