The defendant's refusal disposition against the plaintiff on February 11, 2020 excluding the information set forth in the attached Table 1.

Details of the disposition

On April 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on B with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office for the following suspicion (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office 2017 punishment No. 4749, hereinafter referred to as "the relevant criminal case's case). B, on August 5, 2016, posted 34 text messages and deleted 34 text messages and damaged electronic records while keeping a gallonular phone (hereinafter referred to as "the instant mobile phone").

On August 21, 2017, the public prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor's Office submitted the instant mobile phone from the Plaintiff, and then requested the mobile forensic team of the Seoul High Military Public Prosecutor's Office to analyze the instant mobile phone.

Seoul High Prosecutors' Office mobile sirens a shaking of the text message " August 31, 2017." However, due to the characteristics of smartphones, the point of time of deletion of text message was difficult to specify, and a result response was made.

The public prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor's Office was a suspect of related criminal cases on September 14, 2017 on the basis of response, etc. to the results thereof.

B was subject to non-prosecution disposition by the absence of suspicion (insufficient evidence).

On February 5, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a request for the disclosure of information on “A” as a result of a siren-related criminal case’s forensic inspection to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant, on February 11, 2020, issued a disposition rejecting disclosure of the public institution's information (amended by Act No. 17690, Dec. 22, 2020); Article 9 (1) 4 of the former Information Disclosure Act; Article 2 of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 17690, Dec. 22, 2020; hereinafter "the former Information Disclosure Act"); Article 22 (1) 4 of the former Rules on the Business of the Public Prosecutor's Preservation (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 993, Jan. 1, 2021; hereinafter "the former Rules on the Business of the Public Prosecutor's Preservation") on the ground that it constitutes the grounds provided for in Article 22 (1) 4 of the former Rules on the Business of the Public Prosecutor's Office (amended by Act No. 17690, Jan. 1, 2021; hereinafter "the disposition in this case")