The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that “Information pertaining to individuals, such as resident registration numbers and resident registration numbers, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on the privacy or the freedom of privacy.”

In this context, the information subject to non-disclosure includes not only “personal identification information, such as name and resident registration number,” but also “information that may cause harm to a person’s personal and mental life or be unable to freely lead a private life by disclosing personal information according to the content of information.”

Therefore, in the records of non-prosecution disposition or the records of internal investigation, the contents of the statement other than the personal information of the suspect, etc. recorded in the protocol, etc., are deemed likely to infringe on the privacy

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361 Decided June 18, 2012). Meanwhile, the proviso to Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act excludes “information prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for public interest or for the relief of rights of individuals” from information subject to non-disclosure.

Here, whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary to protect an individual’s right” ought to be carefully determined depending on specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of individual privacy protected by non-disclosure such as privacy and the interests of individual’s right protection protected by disclosure, etc.

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1342 Decided December 26, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14224 Decided October 29, 2009, etc.

(b).