demonstration and public safety and order can be properly harmonized. However, restricting the fundamental rights by law must be limited to the minimum extent necessary for public welfare. Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act stipulates that assemblies and demonstrations are prohibited in places within 100 meters of the capitol, the courthouses, the Constitutional Court, and the presidential residence, and questions have been raised consistently from the perspective that the restrictions on fundamental rights should be limited to the minimum necessary. In 2018, the Constitutional Court declared that Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act was unconstitutional.170) The Constitutional Court held that the constitutional functions of the National Assembly is compatible with assemblies near the capitol, and that the protection of the function of the National Assembly should be limited to physical pressure on the National Assembly members and threats to the National Assembly facilities, and prohibiting peaceful gatherings in nearby parks and green areas was seen as excessive. Since then, the Constitutional Court and the courts have maintained the same stance regarding the courthouses, Prime Minister’s official residence, and the presidential residence. In accordance with the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality, the 20th National Assembly established a no assembly zone to Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act in May 2020; however, a proviso clause is added to cases where there is no fear of interfering with the activities of the National Assembly, cases where there is no fear of affecting the independence of judges in their duties or the trial of a specific case, cases where there is no fear of escalating to a large-scale assembly or demonstration. However, despite the revision by the National Assembly, many civil groups and experts argue that the police is left to make a judgement as the amended Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is ambiguous in providing the requirements for exceptions, and claims that ‘prohibited in principle and permitted as an exception’ does not conform with the international human rights standards.171) 170) Constitutional Court, Decided on May 31, 2018, 2013HunBa322 171) Jeong, Jun-il, Kim, Seon-il, Critical Review of Article 11 of the Amended ‘Assembly and Demonstration Act,’ 2021. 65