The Previous Notice Bill is a system that announces in advance an enactment, amendment, and/or abolition of a law. It was designed to expand the participation of citizen in local legislation. The more this system works honestly, the more our opinions will be contained in the laws. However, we do not use this system efficiently.    
The report about the Previous Notice Bill results was released in 2006. The Bill was disclosed to the public by Lee Gyeo-gyeong, a lawmaker for the GNP. The report showed statistics from 5 government agencies: the Government Information Agency, the National Emergency Planning Commission, the Small and Medium Business Administration, the Civil Service Commission, and the Ministry of Government Legislation. It showed a 0% in reporting the opinions of citizens about legislation. Another five agencies showed low statistics: the Ministry of Science & Technology (14.3%), Ministry of National Defense (24.4%), National Police Agency (42.4%), Ministry of Health & Welfare (46.1%), Ministry of Culture and Tourism (56.0%). Namely, the two provisions of the Bill were not being met. The provisions were:  (1) The people can present their opinions about the bill and ministries. (2) The office must report these public opinions about the legislation) is not working.
▲The way of notification is simple 
In practice, the main way the Previous Notice Bill is make announcement is putting them in the official gazette. Although propagation of the Previous Notice Bill has not help to increase the diffusion of the restricted official gazette, this is used to fit an estimate. But the government agencies say “~the Previous Notice Bill is noticed by the official gazette, the official report, the newspaper, the broadcasting, and PC communication.”
▲Assessment of opinion is abstract
A constitution gives responsibility of managing a nation to the executive branch; appraisal of public opinions, which are submitted through the Previous Notice Bill, exists due to the discretion of the government. Although, it is not perfect about regulations, which are not concrete, the Korean law says, “As the way of the world has always been, if opinions of the public on the Previous Notice Bill do not violate obligation and aim of a policy, they would be reflected.” So, there was abuse of discretion in government about reflection of public opinions on the constitution through the public opinion assessment. This may have a possibility for the demolishing the meaning of the Previous Notice Bill system.    
▲Bounds of the previous notice bill is limited
As with other political issues, there is a problem with establishing the limits of the Previous Notice Bill. Korean law says, “~if there are cases which require urgency or do not require the necessity of the Previous Notice Bill through judgment in attribute of legislation content or just simple execution or giving bad influence to society, a government can make exceptions within the sphere of the Previous Notice Bill.” This regulation is abstract, and we do not know the grounds of judgment. Therefore, the abstract furnishes an opportunity to interpret individual conveniences. Naturally, the sphere is diminished by individual profits. And the bill disposes to the public to present their opinions, but there is actually a decrease of the public’s opinion.  There is a need for a concreteness of the law and ordinances. After the law and ordinances have found their virtue, the generating of bad influence on society from the Previous Notice Bill will not occur.   
 Moreover, the lawmaker’s legislative bill is not included in the sphere of the previous notice bill. Presently, the government’s legislative bill made provisions that are applications to the spheres of that bill. According to the side of decision making process and one’s responsibility, it was not essentially different from the bill made by the government’s legislative. So, to give meaning to the Previous Notice Bill, there needs to be some required explanations.
▲Lack of period
Korean law presented a 20-day proposition period to the people. But there are cases, which were debated under the 20-day period. For example, in 2005, the Ministry of Construction & Transportation made a Previously Notice about the revision of a bill about building laws for requests of people, who wanted to expand their balconies. But, they reduced the period from 20-days to 8-days and said, “For speedy execution, we shifted back to a 7-days notice for debate.” Although, there were cases that exceeded beyond the 20-days, (For example, in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Korea and the USA) the two nations agreed to provide opportunities to reflect on public opinions. The United State established a 60-days minimum period and regulation of announcing results of the public’s opinion, while the period suggested by Korea was only a 40-day period. Ascertaining the results of the public opinion reflection did not exist. The high ranking officials in the Ministry of the Environment said, “It was inevitable for the National Assembly, because assemblymen do not work continuously all the time, and there were many schedules to consider.” He also talked about the way to access the public opinions of a nation. “There was the commission, consisted of expert professors and lawyers, who have inspected diverse opinions. But this commission was not elucidated in law.” This means it is not a compulsion. In addition, this is at the discretion of the government. However, he said “Although a problem exists for various reasons, there are improvements. One of them is notifying the public of the original bill on the government’s website with the computer popularization since the 90’s this is an effective means. Before that, the ministration notified citizens by summarizing the Bill; however, people did not understand the contents of bill. But the computer and internet opened an opportunity to notify citizens of the original bill’s content to the nation.”
 But, improvement from computer popularization in the 90’s is not a direct solution for accompanying our modern age needs. An endeavor by the government is required for easy acquisition of the Bill to the people and is the meaning behind the Previous Notice Bill’s development and implementation.