Background
In June 2021, Law Firm Changchun filed a complaint on behalf of our client for fraud and violations of the Door-to-Door Sales Act. In June 2025, prosecutors decided not to indict.
To respond to the non-indictment, Changchun asked the competent district prosecutors' office in November 2025 to disclose two suspects' interrogation records and investigation reports and statements involving witnesses. The prosecutors refused everything, citing privacy and the fact that the suspects and a witness did not consent to disclosure.
What Was at Stake
Under the Official Information Disclosure Act, an agency must notify third parties connected to requested information and may hear their views, and those parties may ask that it not be disclosed. The questions were whether such an objection alone justified refusal and whether the statements were protected private information.
How Changchun Helped
Acting as the complainant's representative, Changchun sued for disclosure of the records minus personal data. The court accepted the following points:
A third-party objection is not a ground for refusal. Notice and objection are procedural steps; an objection alone does not make information confidential.
The records mostly described the background of the case. They did not expose intimate private matters.
The complainant had a real need. The complainant's counsel needed the records to respond to the non-indictment decision.
Outcome
In July 2026, the first-instance court revoked the refusal except for the personal details of people other than the complainant (including occupations), one investigation report about a witness's personal circumstances regarding attendance, and ID copies attached to a record. The remaining claim was dismissed, but the court ordered the prosecutors' side to bear all litigation costs.
A suspect's or witness's objection does not by itself block a complainant's access to investigation records. A carefully narrowed request can secure most of what is needed. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)