Summary of the Decision 1. Whether the Principle of Clarity is Violated The Provisions at Issue prescribe information and communications services provider to provisionally take the temporary measure in a situation where it is difficult for the provider to judge by materials submitted or allegations of the person claiming violation of one’s rights whether a piece of information published in information and communications networks violates any right or where there is a dispute between interested parties regarding such materials or allegations. As people with a common sense of legal sentiment can ascertain which cases fall under the above situations and as it is difficult to understand that there is a risk of arbitrary interpretation, the Provisions at Issue do not violate the principle of clarity. 2. Whether the Principle against Excessive Restriction is Violated In its decision on May 31, 2012 for 2010Hun-Ma88 case, the Constitutional Court of Korea viewed that there is no means other than the temporary measure, as provided in the contested provision of this case, that is less restrictive on the information publisher’s freedom of expression and concurrently is effective in achieving the contested provision’s legislative purpose; and that the procedural requirements and contents in placing the temporary measure, as provided in the contested provision of this case, are in tandem devised to restrict the information publisher’s freedom of expression to the minimum extent necessary. Therefore, the Court held that the contested provision of this case is not in violation of the principle against excessive restriction. Those who provide and use information and communications services are Parties to a contract for the use of information and communications services, such as an online bulletin board. Hence, information publisher id est information and communications services users are entitled to raise - 134 -