目次:一、案件基本情况二、关于公开义务主体的不同理解(一)一审法院思路(二)二审法院思路(三)相关学说(四)本案焦点分析三、本案二审判决对类似案件的影响探讨(一)类似案件(二)何种影响以及“保存”的概念国务院《政府信息公开条例》第17条以及各个地方的实施规定对政府信息公开的义务主体都进行了规定,但如何理解对同一份政府信息分别“制作、获取、保存”的不同行政机关谁应履行公开义务,这在理论和实务中都存在争议。本文试图 Table of Contents: I. Basic Information of the Case II. Different Understandings on the Subject of Public Obligation (I) Ideas of the Court of First Instance (II) Ideas of the Court of Second Instance (III) Relevant Doctrine (IV) Focus Analysis of the Case III. Discussion on the Impact of the Second Instance Judgment on Similar Cases (A) of similar cases (two) what kind of impact and “saving ” concept State Department “Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information,” Article 17 and the implementation of the provisions of various places on the obligation to disclose the main government information are provided, but how to understand It is controversial in both theory and practice that different administrative organs on the same piece of government information should make “public obligation” to be “fabricated, acquired and preserved.” This article attempts