Background
Investigating authorities commonly refuse a complainant's request for disclosure of investigation records on the ground that disclosure "would impede the investigation." Yet the same ground is repeated even where the matter has already been disposed of and no investigation remains ongoing. Changchun represented a complainant who received such a refusal.
The Issue — The Limits of the "Investigation" Exemption Under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act
Subparagraph 4 exempts "information relating to investigations which, if disclosed, would significantly impede the performance of those duties." The key questions were how far this ground extends, and in particular whether it can be invoked after an investigation has closed.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun established in concrete terms that ① the case law confines the subparagraph 4 exemption to cases where disclosure carries a high probability of concretely obstructing the fair and efficient performance of investigative and related duties; ② once the matter has closed, any concern about obstructing further investigation has in substance disappeared; and ③ a refusal resting on nothing more than a vague possibility of "impediment" is therefore unlawful.
The word "investigation" does not justify every refusal to disclose. Changchun contests improper dispositions that reflexively withhold even the records of closed cases, examining precisely how far disclosure must extend. (Outcomes may differ depending on the facts of each matter.)