20. Case on the Unconstitutionality of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. Prescribing the Employment Requirements for an Online Newspaper perform occupational functions of journalists who fall short of the renewed requirements, these provisions are not unconstitutional to the extent that they must be invalidated for this reason. Therefore, the Employment Provision and Verification Provisions do not infringe upon the complainants’ freedom to perform occupational functions by violating the rule against excessive restriction. 3. Compared to printed newspapers, online newspapers require relatively less investment in facilities and equipment, and are not limited by page space. Moreover, distribution costs are low, making it easier to write and publish articles, while all unspecified persons connected to the internet are potential readers, articles can be reproduced through blogs or social network services (SNS), and by being posted on SNS channels, articles can be continuously preserved and looked up even after they are removed; this all indicates that online newspapers have a much broader reach and more far-reaching power than printed ones. Given such characteristics, the restriction of personnel requirements for online newspapers, unlike printed newspapers, is a case for reasonable discrimination. 4. Online newspapers have an extremely wide reach; the legislative purpose of the amended Employment Provision would be overshadowed if it cannot be applied to the many online newspapers that are already registered; the number of registered online newspaper companies is rising sharply, but in tandem with the harms of inaccurate or sensational reporting, or harmful advertising; remedies provided under the Press Arbitration Act and the Newspaper Act are merely ex post facto measures, and thus do not serve as effective remedies for false reports by online newspapers, which have a wide reach; and the grace period of one year given to the complainants by the Addenda Provision cannot be deemed too short to address the circumstantial changes brought about by the amendment of the Enforcement Decree. In light of this, the Addenda Provision does not infringe upon the confidence of the complainants. - 212 -