🧾 Case Overview

The Seoul Administrative Court ruled that prosecutors must disclose certain special activity fund records.

A civic group won a lawsuit challenging the prosecution’s refusal to disclose information.



—

📌 Key Facts

The civic group requested disclosure of:

Monthly special activity funds used by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office

Specifically:

Allocated amount (income)

Spent amount (expenditure)

Remaining balance



The prosecution refused disclosure:

Citing the Information Disclosure Act

Arguing it could harm ongoing investigations and official duties




—

⚖️ Legal Issue

Whether these financial details qualify as:

Non-disclosable information related to investigations and criminal proceedings




—

🏛️ Court’s Decision

The refusal to disclose was unlawful

The court ordered cancellation of the non-disclosure decision



—

🧠 Court’s Reasoning

Not all information in special activity fund records is automatically confidential

Each piece of information must be assessed individually

The requested data (totals like income, spending, balance):

❌ Does not reveal:

Specific investigations

Targets or methods

Operational details


❌ Does not significantly hinder prosecutorial duties


Therefore:

It does not meet the legal standard for non-disclosure




—

💡 Key Takeaways

✔️ Government agencies cannot broadly classify financial records as secret

✔️ Transparency can be required if disclosure does not meaningfully harm operations

✔️ Courts favor case-by-case analysis, not blanket secrecy

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=217640