2014 and before amended by Act No. 14839 on July 26, 2017), Article 82-6 Section 1 of former Public Official Election Act (Amended by No. 14839 on July 26, 2017 and before amended by Act. 16957 on February 4, 2020), Article 82-6 Section 1 of Public Official Election Act(Amended by No. 16957 on February 4, 2020) and Article 82-6 Sections 4, 6, and 7 of Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 9974 on January 25, 2010) (hereinafter referred to as the “Provision on Real -Name Verification”) ; (2) Article 82-6 Section 3 of former Public Official Election Act (Amended by No. 14839 on July 26, 2017 and before amended by Act No.16957 on February 4, 2020) and Article 82-6 Section 3 of Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 16957 on February 4, 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the “Provision on Managing Real-Name Verification Data”); and (3) Article 261 Section 3 Item 3 of former Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 13497 on August 13, 2015 and before amended by Act. 14556 on February 8, 2017), Article 261 Section 3 Item 4 of Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 14556 on February 8, 2017) and Article 261 Section 6 Item 3 of Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 12393 on February 13, 2014) (hereinafter referred to as the “Provision on Fine”) Summary of the Decision The Provisions at Issue restrict, among various aspects of freedom of expression, the freedom of anonymous speech under which a user of a bulletin board, etc. can anonymously express and disseminate his/her thoughts and opinions without disclosing his/her identity. This consequently restricts the freedom of press for internet news sites which seek to form and disseminate public opinion based upon users’ free expression of opinion on the bulletin 2 board, etc. of their websites and the right to informational self-determination of the users of the bulletin board, etc. in terms of the data on real-name verification results being collected and managed. The legislative objective of the Provisions at Issue is to avoid possible social and economic damages and side effects caused by personal attacks and negative propaganda against political parties or candidates and to ensure a fair election. The Court can acknowledge the necessity of regulations to prevent any negative effect that may arise from allowing anonymous expression of opinion. However, where anonymous political speech expressed on the bulletin board, etc. of a website is restricted as specified in the Provisions at Issue, the general public will self-censor and refrain from expressing criticism out of fear of political retaliation. Even if a person, overcoming such fear, anonymously expresses critical opinions, such expression may be deleted for failing to have his/her real name verified in accordance with the Provisions at Issue. This will suppress the exchange of different opinions in the ‘free market of thoughts’ shaped by the Internet, which may ultimately lead to creating a chilling effect on the people’s expression of opinion itself and hindering the free formation of public opinion on which democracy depends. Aside from anonymity, there are other elements at play, which include the content of the anonymous expression, the relevant system regulating political expression, and other political and social circumstances, to create the negative effects of anonymous political expression during the period of an election campaign. Therefore, preemptive and comprehensive

Select target paragraph3