This research will explore the need for a terrorism prevention legislation and conduct a comparative analysis of the terrorism prevention legislations that had been laid before the National Assembly, as a means of seeking the optimal measure to minimize human rights breaches, while protecting national security and citizen safety in response to New Terrorism. A system in which national agencies may be organically overseen and coordinated is called for, in the aspect that a quicker and more effective response to new forms of terrorism, such as New Terrorism. Therefore, an agency that organically oversees and coordinates national agencies in the areas of data collection and analysis, and terrorist group designation is needed, and a terrorism prevention law that may serve as the grounds for such an agency should be enacted. And through an analysis of terrorism prevention bills that have been brought before the National Assembly, the following proposals are made as a means of reducing the risk of violating people’s basic rights with respect to establishing terrorism prevention laws. First, terrorist group designation and withdrawals thereof shall be clearly set forth as a matter for the National Counterterrorism Council’s inquiry and resolution. As designation of terrorism organization and withdrawals thereof will be carefully executed through the Council member’s deliberation and resolution, this should be the legislative approach to reduce the risk of people’s basic rights violations which could occur if a certain national agency were to arbitrarily make the decision. Second, functional dualism of the Counterterrorism Center is proposed, as a means of addressing concerns that terrorism prevention laws will inevitably empower the National Intelligence Service and as a result lead to the breach of people’s basic rights. Third, ‘military and other supports’ may be unconstitutional, as it will allow for mobilizing of military force in civilian areas without grounds for Marshall Law based on the Constitution. As a circumstance in which the counterterrorism special forces and police force have difficulty protecting key national facilities and frequented public facilities from terrorist attacks would be a circumstance equal to that of a ‘wartime, disaster or an equivalent national emergency’, retaining ‘military or other supports’ in the provisions do not seem to be worth the trouble of being criticized as being unconstitutional.