Key NHRCK Activities of the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, the Principle of Clarity and the Anti-Over-restriction Principle should be strictly observed so as not to limit the basic human rights. disinformation, as well as the provisions on presumption of negligence or gross negligence, which are requisites for establishing punitive damages, are abstract and lacking of clarity, and that making even Internet news service providers eligible for punitive damages when it is practically impossible for them to know in advance what news is unlawful news would amount to making Part 1 Introduction In the same vein, the Commission concluded that the proposed concept of fake news and them more accountable than would be necessary by treating them in the same way as news producers. The Commission advised that the concept of fake news and disinformation should at least economic benefits, 4) manipulation to make believe that given information is based on verified facts or was already actually reported in the media, and that such requisites should be stipulated with sufficient detail so that the provisions’ negative impact on media reporting can be minimized. The Commission also advised that the existing provisions on presumption of negligence or gross negligence be deleted as the associated requisites remain unclear and abstract. Also, considering Part 2 Key NHRCK Activities include such requisites as 1) falsehood, 2) intent to cause harm, 3) aim to gain political or that the deletion might cause excessive burden of proof on victims, it suggested that a separate I. ‌Opinion expressed regarding disapproving a teacher’s request for parental time Regarding a petition (21-jinjeong-0314700) that it is unfair for the complainant’s school to disapprove the complainant’s request for parental time even though no regulation exists that is against it, the Commission dismissed it based on conclusion that, considering all circumstances, including the petitioner’s right to childcare, the students’ right to learn, and the discretionary authority of the school principal, the case does not constitute infringement of human rights. However, in accordance with Paragraph 1, Article 25 of the NHRCK Act, it expressed opinion, concluding that the educational authorities should be urged to make institutional improvements in this regard, given the special situation that the teacher is in, and given the possibility that there may be similar incidents in the future. 59 Part 3 Appendices provision be established to adequately adjust the burdens of proof among parties involved.