The article 18 of game review regulation has some problems related to mandate of upper law; it violates the limit of mandate of upper law and judicial power. The article 2 of Game industry promotion law defines the concept of ‘gambling behavior’. But the article 18 of game review regulation includes behaviors which are not included in the article 2 to regulate them. Court should have the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not; according to the article 18 of game review regulation, the game rating board has the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not. According to the revision of Game industry promotion law, rating rejection to the violation of Game industry promotion law is possible. Minor violation of law as to business regulation should not be considered as the reason of rating rejection. Therefore, The revision of game law has probability of violating Constitution principle such as proportion rule.

On January in 2013, a district judge made a constitutional suit to the Constitutional Court whether voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional. The key point is that the legal interest of the punishing voluntary prostitution is obscure, to punish it is not accorded with the properness of manner and the minimum of victim, and it is questionable in point of equal protection. The question that voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional is during debate since long time ago. Some says it should not be punished because everybody has a sexual self-determination, others it is crime because it is immoral, and the others it is controlled by the state because it is harmful to the moral people. I make a couple of proposals in the following points. Firstly, because the legal interest of punishing voluntary prostitution is obscure, so that it should not be punished. Secondly, punishing voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional because everybody has a sexual self-determination and buying or selling sexual service is absolutely depending on the individual. Thirdly, punishing voluntary prostitution is out of the principle because it goes against with the ultima ratio rule. Fourthly, punishing all the patterns of voluntary prostitution is not possible and punishing some peculiar types of prostitution does not accord with equal protection. Finally, punishing voluntary prostitution is against the principle of less restrictive alternative because everybody has a right to have a sex without force with another. So punishing voluntary prostitution is unconstitutional. However, if the Constitutional Court proclaims that it is unconstitutional, it would give a shock to the ordinary people because they do not have an open mind with it. So I dare to say that punishing voluntary prostitution is committed to the ‘factual’ decriminalization for a while before punishing adultery is unconstitutional proclaimed by the Constitutional Court.

This study has considered on basis of constitutionality that the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of prohibition against double jeopardy, over-prohibition, and rights to equality. The attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of prohibition against double jeopardy because it is a security measure to restrict freedom without imprisonment. However double assessment of second conviction dangerousness at additional punishment to repeated offense and sentence of the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location could be raised objection of double jeopardy. A sex offence has a character that second conviction dangerousness and crime victimization are serious. Thus to release sex offenders is very dangerous, and protection of victims and social defence are necessary. Therefore the attachment order of electronic device for tracking location doesn't violate the principle of over-prohibition because there is a balance between human rights violation and public interest. The attachment order of electronic device for tracking location is applied special offences, but it doesn't violate the principle of rights to equality because of a sanction to character of sex offenders.