1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was indicted from Busan District Prosecutors' Office for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) (hereinafter referred to as "related criminal case"), and was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for not less than one year and six months by this Court, which was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for not less than one year and six months by the High Court,

(B) On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for perusal and copying of the investigation report (hereinafter “investigation report of this case”) from among the evidence records in the relevant criminal case.

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, ex officio, whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate or not.

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, there is a burden of proving that it is highly probable that an administrative agency holds and manages the information that seeks disclosure. Where a public institution fails to retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459 delivered on January 13, 2006). In the instant case, it is difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was highly probable that the Defendant would possess and manage the instant investigation report, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 2 (A) and evidence Nos. 3 (A) of this case, there was no fact of collecting DNA from the plaintiff during the investigation process of the relevant criminal case, and the present relation.