1. On August 24, 2016, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of information as to the investigation records listed in the attached Table 1 against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

B filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the charge of occupational embezzlement and evasion of compulsory execution. On February 26, 2016, the prosecutor rendered a disposition of non-prosecution on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not prosecuted (No. 2015 type No. 74509 of the Military Prosecutors' Office; hereinafter referred to as "the instant non-prosecution case").

On August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for information disclosure with the Defendant by means of inspection, on the following: (a) the accusation; (b) the accusation; (c) the accusation’s statement; (c) the protocol of suspect interrogation containing the accusation’s statement; (d) all documents containing the accusation’s statement in any form, such as the protocol of statement, written statement; and (e) all evidentiary materials including documentary evidence submitted by the complainant to the investigation agency; and (b) the information disclosure by means of inspection.

On August 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting disclosure of some investigation records (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the information for which the Plaintiff requested disclosure includes confidential information prescribed in Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) among the information for which the Plaintiff requested disclosure” (hereinafter “instant investigation records”).

【In the absence of a dispute on the grounds of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff asserting that the defendant asserted that the plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information only to the investigation records which the complainant originally stated or submitted. As such, the investigation records of this case submitted by a third party who is not the complainant do not constitute the disposition of this case from the beginning.

Therefore, the part of investigation records against the above third party in the plaintiff's claim is unlawful because there is no disposition to seek cancellation.

Among the investigation records of this case, the investigation records of this case are related.