This decision is a case that took a clear position on the specific disclosure of diplomatic secrets, in light of the fact that the Official Information Disclosure Act also treats information related to national interests such as diplomacy and defense specially as subject to disclosure. Information on diplomatic relations whose disclosure is deemed likely to seriously harm major national interests under Article 9(1)(2) of the former act is not secret information under statutes as in Article 9(1)(1), but it refers to confidential information and is designated as exempt from disclosure. Article 113 of the Criminal Act punishes anyone who leaks diplomatic secrets, and according to Supreme Court precedent, diplomatic secrets mean "secrets the state must keep in relation to foreign countries, that is, all information and materials whose being kept secret from or unconfirmed to foreign countries for diplomatic policy reasons is in the interest of the Republic of Korea." It cannot be determined whether the requested information reaches the level of a diplomatic secret within the scope of the Criminal Act, but as the Supreme Court found, it is clear that disclosure could seriously affect the national interest. Even if the information did not reach the level of affecting major national interests, since it concerns treaties at the initialing stage and treaties whose text was not yet finalized, it could also fall under Article 9(1)(5), information on matters in the decision-making or internal review process whose disclosure would seriously hinder the fair performance of duties. Disclosing information on negotiations during the treaty-making process not only affects the position taken in the negotiations but can also create diplomatic problems by affecting the other party's choice of negotiating strategy and position. It could also affect the positions of third countries that may hold similar diplomatic negotiations in the future, making negotiations between Korea and those countries impossible or forcing Korea to begin negotiations at a disadvantage with its strategy already exposed. In this respect, the Supreme Court's decision not to disclose the diplomatic information is judged appropriate.

To add: the Korea-Japan General Security of Military Information Agreement, whose signing was put on hold just before the ceremony in June 2012, was concluded on November 23, 2016. The government gave notice of termination in August 2019, suspended that notice in November of the same year, and withdrew it in March 2023, normalizing the agreement. A person refused disclosure can challenge the decision through an objection (Article 18 of the Official Information Disclosure Act), an administrative appeal (Article 19) or an administrative lawsuit (Article 20), and in a lawsuit the court can examine the information itself in private. The paper's reference to "Article 7(1)(5) of the former act" uses the numbering before the 2004 full revision, which corresponds to Article 9(1)(5) of the current act.