personal information. Unlike the fact that strict regulation is in place for obtaining communications data through communications data restriction measures, searches and seizures, requests for provision of communications confirmation data, etc., the Act Provision allows an investigation agency to obtain information without any judicial controls, which is inconsistent with the aforementioned legal system. In addition, even though less restrictive means are available, such as subjecting the acquisition of communications information to judicial controls, notifying the data subject of the acquisition thereof, and limiting the scope of the affected and the purposes of the collection, the Act Provision excessively infringes upon the confidentiality of communications and right to informational self-determination. (b) Although it is beyond dispute that the Act Provision should clarify its legal basis by specifying in detail actors, purposes, the affected, scope, etc., of the collection, storage, and use of personal information, it describes the reasons for the request of provision and the possibility for a telecommunications business operator to reject the request in an unclear way, violating the rule of clarity. Furthermore, it is against the principle of due process of law as it does not establish any measures to ensure procedural appropriateness, such as ex-ante or ex-post judicial controls or ex-post notification. It also violates systematic legitimacy by making it unclear whether the act of furnishing communications data falls under an investigation, while the Act Provision distinguishes communications data from communications confirmation data and regulates communications data in the Telecommunications Business Act, which does not fit its legislative objectives. Furthermore, it is contrary to the principle of statutory reservation by enacting the law without a notification procedure to the data subject, which is key to the right to informational self-determination. - 35 -