1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of non-permission regarding the documents listed in the attached list 3.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Regarding the case No. 2013-type 43195 of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B as embezzlement. However, B was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor in charge of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office on March 14, 2014 (Evidence of Evidence). (2) On August 19, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to inspect and copy the records of the case No. 2013-type 43195 of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office.

3) On August 24, 2015, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff to inspect and copy the protocol of statement (the Plaintiff’s statement) and the protocol of interrogation (the identity-appellant). However, on the remaining records, Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Affairs of Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office (the disclosure of records is likely to seriously undermine the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace of life of a person involved in the case) (the disclosure of records is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation, privacy, or peace of life) (the disclosure of records) of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices (the disclosure of records is likely to cause unnecessary disputes).

Information for which the perusal and copying of the above records were denied is as shown in the attached Table 1 list, and hereinafter referred to as “information of this case 1.”

B) The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office 2014-type 79118 (1) with respect to the case, but C was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor in charge of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office, who was suspected of having been prosecuted by the prosecutor in charge of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office.

2) On August 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the perusal of the records in the case No. 2014-type and No. 79118 of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office. 3) On August 24, 2015, the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to inspect the records on the part of the Plaintiff’s statement among the interrogation protocol of the Plaintiff (the second and the substitution of questions). However, on the remaining records, the confidential information in the investigative method should be disclosed or unnecessary disputes may arise.