1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Case history

A. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against B as a special intimidation, or assault with the head of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office, No. 7683, 2017, but the prosecutor in charge issued a disposition on April 26, 2017 that the said case was suspected of being prosecuted.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape with Persons with Disabilities) with the punishment No. 25158 of the Office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office in 2017, but the prosecutor in charge issued a disposition that he/she was guilty of the above case on November 2, 2017.

C. Accordingly, on November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff visited the office of the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office to request perusal and reproduction of each of the investigation records as to each of the above investigation records. On November 28, 2017, the Defendant sent a copy of the complaint, the statement by the complainant, the statement by the complainant, and the stenographic records.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed perusal of the entire investigation records at the time of visit to the office of the competent branch office of Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office. However, the Defendant made a copy of the complaint, the statement of the complainant, the stenographic records, and made a disposition of denial of inspection and copying on the remaining records. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion sought revocation of the disposition of rejection.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant filed a request for the inspection and copying of only the complaint, the statement of accusation, the stenographic records, and the stenographic records, and thus there is no rejection disposition asserted by the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Defendant rendered a non-permission disposition as alleged by the Plaintiff, the investigation records are recorded in the prosecutor’s investigation process, and thus, they constitute “information pertaining to the prevention, investigation, the institution and maintenance of a public prosecution, which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for remarkably obstructing the performance of duties or infringing on Defendant’s right to a fair trial,” under Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.