1. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission for perusal and copy of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office 2016No. 12429 against the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter “instant complaint”). However, the prosecutor of the said prosecutor’s office issued a non-prosecution disposition on June 22, 2016 (Evidence of Evidence).

B. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for perusal and copying of the records of the instant case (hereinafter “the records of the instant case”).

C. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) granted permission to peruse and copy the written opinion, the written complaint, and the written statement of the complainant; and (b) granted permission to peruse and copy the remaining parts of the records (hereinafter “non-disclosure information of this case”) on the grounds that the disclosure of the records under Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices would seriously undermine the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace in life of the person involved in this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). D.

In the instant litigation procedure, the Defendant added the grounds for disposition that the instant non-disclosure information constitutes an individual-related information, such as the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, and deemed likely to infringe on the confidentiality or freedom of privacy if disclosed) under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 3 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 22 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecution’s Recovery and Preservation is merely an administrative rule that does not have any legal basis for delegation, and cannot be deemed the legal basis for the instant disposition. The instant non-disclosure information is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.