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