ions Secrets Act does not conform to the Constitution(2012Hun-Ma538)12. - In addition, the Constitutional Court, in its non-conformity decision(2016Hun-Ma263) on interception of internet cables, with regards to the National Intelligence Service’s interception of internet cables(pack et interception), recognized the massive amount and inclusiveness of the date collected through intercept ion of internet cables is at the center of violation of the principle of the least restrictive mean, and rul ed that the part concerning “telecommunications transmitted and received through internet cables” of Ar ticle 5(Requirements for Permission for Communication-Restricting Measures for Criminal Investigation) (2)13 of the Protection of Communication Secrets Act violated the principle of proportionality 14. firmation data" means the data on the records of telecommunications falling under any one of the following: (f) The data on tracing a location of information communications apparatus connecting to the information communications networks; (g) The data on tracing a location of connectors capable of confirming the location of information communications apparatus t o be used by the users of computer communications or Internet for connecting with the info rmation communications networks; 12 The court ordered to amend the provision until 31 March 2020, and until then, the provision should be applied. 13 ｢Protection of Communications Secrets Act｣ Article 5 (Requirements for Permission for Co mmunication-Restricting Measures for Criminal Investigation) (1) The communication-restricting measures shall be allowed only when there is substantial r eason to suspect that the following crimes are being planned or committed or have been co mmitted, and it is impracticable to prevent the commission of a crime, arrest the criminal, o r collect the evidence (2) The communication-restricting measures may be permitted when the target is any specifi c mail or telecommunications sent and received or transmitted and received by those falling under the conditions in paragraph (1) or any specific mail or telecommunications sent and r eceived or transmitted and received by the applicable parties during a fixed period of time. 14 The court ruled that the interception of internet cable is in violation of the principle of le ast restrictive mean based on lack of mean for post control, and stated that the current Pro tection of Communications Secrets Act only prescribes confidentiality obligation by public off icials (Article 11) and restriction on use of materials acquired through communication-restri cting measures (Article 12); there is no provision on monitoring or controlling of power abus e to handle massive amount of data collected through interception of internet cable; and the