33. Limitation of Extending the Period of the Communication-Restricting Measures the interception for the investigation of crime stipulated by Article 5 of the Act. According to the Act, any notice with regard to the interception of communication is not required unless the interception is completed; no appeal procedure is provided for the subject of the interception; and the entire period or numbers of times of the interception is not limited on extending the interception. As a result, the subject of the interception would be intercepted without recognizing whether she is intercepted or not, being deprived of the opportunity to appeal the permission of the interception. Therefore, the current communication interception system violates Article 12 Section 3 of the Constitution that requires the search according to the due process. 4. Dissenting Opinion of 3 Justices Persistent investigation would be required in case of conspiracy of felony, threat to national security, or organized mass crime, demanding continuous communication-restricting measures to collect evidence. However, the purpose of such investigation would not be achieved if there are limits on the entire period or number of times of the period of communication-restricting measures. In addition, the judicial control is already set in place to prevent the abuse of communicationrestricting measures because the permission of the court is required for extending the period of communication-restricting measures. Accordingly, the instant provision that does not limit the entire period or number of times of communication-restricting measures with the groundless presumption that the court does not thoroughly review the motion to extend the communication-restricting measures in practice would not violate the principle of the least restrictive means. As long as each communication-restricting measure is approved by the court's review on the elements of justifying the permission of extending such measures, the restricted protection interests of privacy to communication would not clearly overweigh the public interests of crime investigation pursued by the instant provision, satisfying the principle of balance of interests. Therefore, the instant provision does not violate the Constitution. - 436 -