1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the head of the Seoul detention center for disclosure of information stating that “The Plaintiff would be aware of the cause and legal basis of deprivation of the right to request review of legality of detention guaranteed under Article 12(6) of the Constitution by prohibiting the Plaintiff’s meeting with his/her family and counsel until the Plaintiff was detained on October 15, 2010 and indicted on October 28, 2010.”

(The receipt number is 2014-685). On November 11, 2014, the head of the Seoul detention center notified the Plaintiff of a decision on disclosure of information containing the following: “On October 26, 2010 to October 27, 2010, general meetings were prohibited by the prosecutor’s direction.”

B. On January 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request with the head of the Seoul detention center for disclosure of information with the content that “I would like to know about the basis of the inspection direction and direction (written decision, etc.) with respect to the disclosure of information “2014-685, the general meeting was prohibited by the inspection direction for two days.”

On January 28, 2016, the head of the Seoul detention center notified the Plaintiff of the decision to disclose information.

C. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information (hereinafter “request for disclosure of the instant information”) stating that “The Plaintiff did not know of the decision of a court pursuant to Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act on January 28, 2016 on the information disclosure notice received from the head of the Seoul detention center (hereinafter “instant information”).

On February 16, 2016, the defendant, in accordance with Article 27(1) of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutors' Office (Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 200-6, where a prosecutor intends to prohibit an interview, etc. with a suspect and a person other than the person provided for in Article 34 of the same Act pursuant to Article 91 of the same Act, a decision prohibiting an interview, etc. with a suspect shall be made according to attached Form 43) that prohibits a prosecutor from meeting, etc., so there is no judgment (decision) on the court decision that the plaintiff requested

“.......”