be formed, as the provisions of the Act on Complaint Processing or the Petition Act, in such a way that permits identity verification that fits specific purposes. Therefore, the Provision at Issue fails the least restrictive means test. Anonymous expression enables individuals to freely manifest and disseminate their thoughts and ideas without succumbing to explicit or implicit external influences, and makes it possible to criticize the State authorities or the prevailing opinions of society. This, in turn, opens the possibility for the views of politically and socially marginalized groups to be considered in policy decision-making by the State. In this respect, anonymous expression cannot be separated from the content of freedom of expression. Further, anonymous expression on the internet forms public opinion that is free from social class, status, age, and gender, based on the speed and interactivity of internet communication. This promotes a more equitable reflection of the will of the people and contributes to the development of democracy. Considering the democratic implications of freedom of anonymous expression, this freedom should be even more strongly protected in public areas regulated by the Provision at Issue than in areas that are not. However, under the Provision at Issue, identity verification is a prerequisite for publishing information on all message boards installed and operated by Public Institutions. This fundamentally blocks the opportunity for those who have not verified their identity to express themselves on message boards operated by Public Institutions, and increases the likelihood that those who wish to manifest their ideas or opinions on such boards will engage in self-censorship regarding the content, tone, etc. of their expression. As such, we cannot help but find that the Provision at Issue is an undue limitation of freedom of anonymous expression. Thus, the Provision at Issue fails the balance of interests test. In conclusion, the Provision at Issue violates the rule against excessive restriction, and thus, infringes the freedom of anonymous expression of Complainant. - 194 -