1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Attached Table 1, as set forth by the Defendant, to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2014.

Details of the disposition

A. On January 28, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B and C in fraud, etc. However, B, etc., on May 24, 2010, the Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor’s Office G prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Public Prosecutor’s Office received a non-prosecution disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff was guilty.

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

B. On June 27, 2014, pursuant to Article 20-2 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to inspect and copy the records of the case No. 2010-type 22804 (hereinafter “the records of this case”).

C. On June 30, 2014, the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to inspect and copy the copy of the judgment and the copy of the sampling of the Plaintiff’s preparation. However, on the remaining records, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s inspection and copying in accordance with Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecution Preservation (which may seriously harm the honor or privacy of the party concerned, the safety of life and body, or the peace of life due to the disclosure of records) of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecution Preservation (the disclosure of records) and Article 22(1)4 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecution Preservation to the internal documents of the investigative agency (the disclosure of records is likely to divulge confidential information in the investigative method to be kept confidential or cause unnecessary new disputes).

(hereinafter referred to as the “disposition.” The information of this case in which the perusal and copying of the instant records were denied is as indicated in the “document name” column in attached Table 1, and hereinafter referred to as “information of this case”). D.

In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant, as a ground for non-disclosure of the instant information, is stipulated under Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), and Article 9(1)6 of the same Act (where disclosed, there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is significantly difficult for the Defendant to perform his/her duties if disclosed). In the appellate trial, the information falls under Article 9(1)6 of the same Act.