In education and the press, there have been continuous efforts and expert activity to spread anti-corruption and integrity culture. Attempts were also made to eliminate corrupt practices in specific fields and establish transparency and fairness by preparing a code of ethics for private kindergartens, measures to eradicate chonji (cash gifts to teachers), and a code of ethics for journalists. However, if the effectiveness of such measures to eradicate corruption in the private sector is rated low merely because they did not produce visible results in a short period, and the state intervenes broadly without considering these actors' self-regulation and self-cleansing functions, it may instead cause private actors to lose their voluntary will to reform. As a result, they may voluntarily narrow their range of action to only those areas where punishment can be avoided, or end up relying solely on the state's criminal laws and policies without further self-cleansing efforts.

The public interest the definition clause seeks to achieve is to keep people from expecting that private school personnel and journalists will grant favors to those who made improper solicitations or gave them money or valuables, and to prevent in advance a decline in the general public's trust in those fields; but this is merely a vague and abstract future risk that has not actually materialized.

Meanwhile, the degree of restriction on the general freedom of action that arises because the definition clause brings private school personnel and journalists within the scope of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act is significant, and as a result there is a real possibility that freedom of education and freedom of the press will be chilled. Therefore, on balancing, the private interests restricted are far greater than the public interest the definition clause seeks to achieve, so the balance of legal interests is also not met. Accordingly, the definition clause violates the principle against excessive restriction and infringes the general freedom of action of the petitioners, who are private school personnel and journalists.

1. Including journalists and private school staff within the scope of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act is excessive interference in the private sector and infringes freedom of the press and the general freedom of action. Fundamentally, the private economic sphere is based on freedom and creativity, unlike the public sphere where integrity and incorruptibility in official duties are emphasized; so the principle is that criminal sanctions intervene when an "improper solicitation" damages a competitive order founded on such freedom and creativity. Yet the Act prohibits journalists and private school staff from receiving solicitations unrelated to their duties, and the state's power to punish intrudes deeply into the private sphere, so it is highly likely to violate the principle of private autonomy.

The private economic sphere is based on freedom and creativity, unlike the public sphere where integrity and incorruptibility in official duties are asserted; so the principle is that criminal sanctions intervene when an "improper solicitation" destroys a competitive order founded on such freedom and creativity.

Since it took effect, the value limits under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act have been adjusted several times. The limits at its 2016 entry into force were KRW 30,000 for meals, KRW 50,000 for gifts and KRW 100,000 for congratulatory or condolence money; through amendments to the Enforcement Decree, the limits for agricultural and fishery product gifts and holiday gifts were raised, and in August 2024 the limit for meals was raised to KRW 50,000. When citing amounts in an assignment, it is accurate to check the latest Enforcement Decree from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the National Law Information Center, and then describe them together with the Constitutional Court's reasoning in holding constitutional the delegation clause that leaves the amounts to Presidential Decree.