1. The case records No. 14860, which the Defendant reported to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2018, regarding the original district public prosecutor’s office in Chuncheon, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 2014, the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court sentenced the Plaintiff to a fine of KRW 300,000,000 (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Da586), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015.

B. On December 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a charge of perjury with B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “B, etc.”) who appeared as a witness and testified in the above criminal trial. However, the prosecutor of the original branch office of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition on March 30, 2018 against B, etc. “Insufficient evidence and without suspicion.”

(No. 14860) c. of 2017

On April 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for perusal and copy of the records of the case No. 14860 of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office in 2017.

On April 6, 2018, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff’s application for permission, and rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that it falls under subparagraphs 2 and 4 of Article 22 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter referred to as “instant information”) on the grounds that each investigation report, each investigation report, protocol of investigation, recommendation of investigation direction, investigation result report (hereinafter referred to as “written information”), each information is specified as “information Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 14” according to the sequences in attached Table 2.

(hereinafter, the non-permission part is referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s non-prosecution case records pursuant to Article 22 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutor’s Office shall not be denied.

Of the instant information, the part other than the personal information listed in attached Table 1 List 1 does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Defendant 1) As to the perusal and copy of the records of the non-prosecution case, the Information Disclosure Act, the Rules on the Prosecutor’s Preservation Affairs, and the case records.