1. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose each information described in [Attachment 1] Nos. 2, 3, and 4, to the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offense, etc. and is currently confined in the same prison.

On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant information”) by means of receiving copies from the Defendant via mail, and the individual information is specified by the sequence, such as “No. 1 information.”

On May 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that no information No. 2 among the instant information exists and the remaining information constitutes Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(2) Article 2(1) of the Information Disclosure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2020, Jun. 8, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Jun. 8, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 20355, Feb. 1, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Jun. 1, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Jun. 1, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Jun. 1, 2018).

Judgment

In principle, the information disclosure system has the burden of proving that it is highly probable that the public institution holds and manages the information that is held and managed by the public institution as a system that discloses the information held and managed by the public institution. However, if the public institution holds and manages the information that is sought to be disclosed, but no document containing the information is destroyed and no later exist, the information will be added.