1. Attached Form 2. Of the disposition of non-permission for inspection and copying of the documents listed in Attached Table 1, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 2, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B with an investigative agency on charges of indecent act by compulsion, but B was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office on November 30, 2016.

The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, but was dismissed, and the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office filed an application for adjudication was also dismissed.

B. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to inspect and copy the records of the case No. 2016-type 44030 of Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office.

C. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to inspect and copy the remaining parts of the Plaintiff’s statement, the protocol of statement of the Plaintiff and the protocol of interrogation of the suspect (in the above protocol of the Defendant’s complaint) excluding the portion of the suspect’s statement. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s inspection and copying on the ground of Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving the Prosecutor’s Preservation (which could either divulge confidential information in the investigative method that should be kept confidential due to disclosure of the record or cause unnecessary new disputes).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant added Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) to the grounds for non-permission for the inspection and copying of the instant documents, and Article 20-2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office (where disclosed as matters concerning investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is significantly difficult to perform his/her duties).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant documents are subject to non-disclosure under Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Office, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful. 2) The instant documents are not subject to inspection and copying under Article 20-2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Office, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. The case.