On the 16th, the Constitutional Court of Korea held an open debate on more than 340 investors' constitutional appeal trials "confirming whether the Korean government's cryptocurrency countermeasures are unconstitutional." Regarding whether the government ’s emergency measures such as the introduction of the real-name system of cryptocurrency transactions from December 2017 to January 2018 are unconstitutional, investors ’representative lawyers said:“ Because of government measures, existing virtual accounts cannot be used, so cryptocurrency exchanges The value declines, and the rights to freely and creatively deal with property are restricted. The government's countermeasures are not based on laws such as the "Financial Real Name Law" and therefore violate the principle of legal reservations. If the Constitutional Court considers the event to be in conformity with the Constitution, the national economic freedom will be trampled by the financial authorities. "
An agent at the Finance Committee countered that "if counterfeit banknote transactions use anonymous anonymous criminal activities such as drug transactions, there may be many side effects in tracking and other aspects. The government and financial institutions negotiate to formulate various countermeasures, and the transaction real-name system is one of them. He explained that the government ’s response did not violate the basic rights of the nation and must be rejected. After the debate between the two sides, the judges focused their questions on government agents' questions about the background and legal basis of the government's measures. In the process, government agents acknowledged that government measures lacked a legal basis. The Constitutional Court plans to base its decision on unconstitutionality in a matter of months, based on a public debate that day. If the plaintiff claims that it is accepted, and is therefore found to be unconstitutional, it will promote the development of crypto-related laws. The South Korean government is also likely to be criticized for "the government's intervention in the market is too frivolous."