logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.05.01 2018구합590
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. Attached Table 1 among the lawsuits of Plaintiff B

(a) relating to each information described in paragraphs 2, 1-b, and 1-d;

Reasons

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. On May 10, 2014, Plaintiff A was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for the crime of attempted murder, and is currently confined in C prison, and Plaintiff B is the mother of Plaintiff A.

B. On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff A hospitalized the F Hospital in accordance with the initiative of C prison correctional officers D, E, etc., in order to perform an operation of the upper part, which was caused by self-harm in which 20 spaculers were collected in spaculing 20 spacules.

C. On the day of the hospitalization of F Hospital, Plaintiff A is currently under trial due to suspicion that: (a) prices the face of E in the dispute with the correctional officer D and D; (b) prevents the legitimate performance of the E and D’s legitimate performance of duties related to safe guard service; (c) at the same time interfere with E and D’s legitimate performance of duties related to safe guard service; and (d) unafluencing DNA to D.

(hereinafter referred to as the "relevant criminal trial") d.

Plaintiff

B On January 18, 2018, the Defendant filed a request for the disclosure of information as to the information described in Section 1-A, C, and (d) of the attached Table 1 with a photograph marked on the distribution of X-ray loss (hereinafter “the instant X-ray photograph”) taken by the Plaintiff A from January 13 to January 15, 2018, but the Defendant rendered a decision on January 26, 2018 to disclose the information as follows.

In other words, with respect to the portion of the X-ray photographs of this case, the decision of disclosure is made on the ground that there is no relevant information about the part, the decision of non-disclosure is likely to seriously obstruct the performance of correctional duties if disclosed, and the decision of non-disclosure is made in accordance with Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act on the ground that the loss or leakage of another person's form is likely to infringe on the privacy and freedom of individuals if disclosed due to video recording.

E. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff A’s “The Central Security Control Office” to the Defendant on January 12, 2018.

arrow