before the act of execution, fixing the citizens’ rights in the state of being determined to the extent that it will not be influenced by the existence or content of the execution itself (see Constitutional Court 2003Hun-Ma337, August 26, 2004), the requirement of directness to fundamental rights infringement is exceptionally acknowledged. As the Act Provision presumes the investigative agency et al.’s requesting a telecommunications business operator to provide communications data, the investigative agency et al.’s making the request itself does not bring about the effect of restraining the fundamental rights of the telecommunications service users. The user’s fundamental rights are inhibited only when a telecommunications business operator, which is not a public authority but a private entity, supplies the user’s communications data to the investigative agency, et al., in response to their request. In other words, in order for the Act Provision to restrict fundamental rights in a concrete way, the telecommunications business operator, which is not a public authority but a private entity, should voluntarily furnish the communications data, which constitutes an essential element. However, it is unclear whether there are direct measures to oppose the Act of Acquiring Communications Data. Moreover, since a user is not the direct respondent of the investigative agency et al.’s request for provision of communications data, it is highly likely that the user will not find any remedies through other procedures. In addition, Complainants assert that allowing the investigative agency et al. to ask telecommunications business operators to provide telecommunications data without a warrant while there is no ex-post notification procedure does not conform to the Constitution, and the Act Provision seems to affect the legal status of Complainants by means of the law itself, at least as for the violation of the principle of warrant and principle of due process of law. Therefore, we recognize the directness of the Act Provision to fundamental rights infringement. 2010Hun-Ma439, the decision made on - 38 -