between Respondents and telecommunications business operators, and the operators would not suffer any legal disadvantages for not following Respondent’s request for the provision. Even if the operators feel psychological pressure due to the request from the investigative agency et al., this is only an indirect and factual, not a legal, disadvantage. Even if operators had not complied with the request of the investigative agency et al. and Respondents had obtained communications data by getting a search and seizure warrant, it would not have caused any disadvantages to the business of the operators (see Constitutional Court 2010Hun-Ma439, August 23, 2012). Therefore, the Act of Acquiring Communications Data does not amount to the exercise of governmental power, which is the subject of a constitutional complaint under Article 68, Section (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, and for this reason, the claim against the acts of acquisition of communications data of Complainants listed in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 is non-justiciable. B. Claim against Act Provision 1. Assessment on Directness In order for a statute or a statutory provision to be subject to a constitutional complaint, the statute itself must result in restrictions on freedom, imposition of duties, or deprivation of rights or legal status without a subsequent, concrete act of execution by the statute or the statutory provision (see Constitutional Court 2017Hun-Ma1299, December 27, 2019). However, where there is a specific act of execution but no remedy for it; where a remedy exists but there is no possibility it works, forcing a complainant whose fundamental rights were violated to make a detour to an unnecessary procedure (see Constitutional Court 96Hun-Ma48, August 21, 1997); or where the content of the legal norm directly changes the citizens’ rights or decisively determines the citizens’ legal status - 37 -