1. The information in the separate sheet No. 2 of the instant lawsuit, excluding the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against B under suspicion of insult, obstruction of the performance of official duties, accusation, assault, etc. by Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office 2018 type No. 55546.

B. The Prosecutor C of the Daejeon District Prosecutor’s Office: (a) was suspected of having received a disposition of non-prosecution by the Prosecutor of the Daejeon District Prosecutor’s Office.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a copy of a non-prosecution case record on the information listed in the attached Table 2 list (hereinafter “instant information”).

On March 20, 2019, the Defendant: (a) granted permission to file an application for copying of the remaining information except for the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant permission disposition”); and (b) granted permission to file an application for copying of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on the ground that the disclosure of records is likely to seriously undermine the honor or privacy of a person involved in the instant case, the safety of life and body, or the peace in life, due to the disclosure of records (Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office) and “any other substantial reason deemed inappropriate to disclose records” (Article 22(1)5 of the same Rule).

(hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] A1-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The information pertaining to the determination of ex officio on the legality of the part concerning the claim regarding the permission disposition of a copy of the instant lawsuit was already rendered by the permission disposition of a copy of the instant lawsuit except the information listed in the attached list 1.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff also sought revocation of the instant information, excluding the information listed in the [Attachment 1] list, on the premise that there was “not to grant permission” as to the instant information.

Thus, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for disclosure of the confidential information is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Whether the non-permission disposition of the same case is unlawful

A. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s non-permission disposition on the copy of the instant case.