an objection or request for a revocation of the temporary measure in accordance with the Terms of Use provided by the information and communications services provider. Considering that the objective of prescribing temporary measure in the Provisions at Issue is to prevent the chilling effect on information and communications service itself, which may result from the information and communications services provider’s compensation liability for a myriad of information in possible violation of rights, it cannot be viewed that an information publisher’s freedom of expression is excessively restricted because his/her right to raise an objection or request for a revocation is not stipulated in the Provisions at Issue but left in the hands of information and communications service provider via the provider’s policy. Further, the temporary measure taken by the information and communications provider – a private party – is not interpreted as a ban on expression of the information. As the information can be republished by information publishers and various other communication channels are present, the temporary measure prescribed in the Provisions at Issue hardly disturbs the free formation of public opinion or gravely restricts the freedom of expression thereof. Considering the above, it is difficult to believe that any particular circumstance or need to reverse the precedent is perceived in this case, and therefore, the Court shall maintain legal precedents from its prior decision. 3. Conclusion To conclude, the Provisions at Issue do not infringe on the freedom of expression of the Complainants. Summary of Dissenting Opinion of Three Justices The Provisions at Issue – which provide for the temporary measure, without any further procedural requirements, in a situation where it is - 135 -