1. On February 22, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-permission for inspection and copying against the Plaintiff on February 22, 2017 as indicated in the attached list.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was indicted for committing the crime that he obtained KRW 200 million from B as a secret fund for acquiring C business rights, and was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for fraud on May 26, 2016 at the Seoul Eastern District Court.

(2015 Highest 1928). The plaintiff appealed and appealed against the above judgment, but the above judgment became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of appeal and the dismissal of appeal.

B. At first, B thought that the waterway funds delivered to the Plaintiff were delivered to D, and the police filed a complaint against D, other than the Plaintiff, on the charge of fraud. On September 3, 2014, the police sent the instant case to the prosecutor’s office.

However, on November 19, 2014, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution disposition by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, which was suspected of having committed a non-prosecution disposition against D.

(No. 81299). (c)

On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for perusal and copying of the entire statement records of witnesses E, F, B, and G in the case records No. 2014-type and No. 81299 with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant information”).

On February 22, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2017, stating that “where the disclosure of records is likely to impair the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace of life of a person involved in the case, it may restrict the perusal and copying of the records of a non-prosecution case may be limited” under Article 22 Subparag. 2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation, without permission for the Plaintiff’s above application, and around February

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul High Prosecutor’s Administrative Appeals Commission, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A No. 1.