[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] "Minors Not Allowed"... The Reason Real Dolls Are Prohibited from Import

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] "It is a sexual device realistically modeled after the physical appearance of females under the age of 16."

On the 25th, the Supreme Court effectively put the first brake on the import of real dolls (adult products modeled after the human body), which have sparked social controversy. While the court had not previously raised issues with real dolls modeled after adult women, it classified real dolls of minors as "items that harm public morals."

Just a month ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a real doll import company that filed a lawsuit against Gimpo Airport Customs, requesting permission to import real dolls. The court did not classify the real dolls in question as "items that harm public morals," which are prohibited imports under customs law. The first trial court stated, "Although the appearance of real dolls gives a licentious impression, it cannot be evaluated to the extent that it seriously damages human dignity and value," and ruled that they do not fall under "items that harm public morals" under customs law.

In particular, the court noted, "Sexual devices are used in very private spaces, and in such intimate areas, it is the path to realizing human dignity and freedom for the state to refrain from interference as much as possible," adding, "It is necessary to be very cautious about treating sexual devices as obscene items and banning their import altogether."

The real doll brought before the Supreme Court this time was different from the one last month. The head part was detachable, the size excluding the head was about 150 cm, the weight was 17.4 kg, and it had the face of a minor female. The import company argued, "It is a male masturbation device with a shape and size similar to an adult female body," and claimed, "It differs from the actual human body, and since detailed features of the human body are not expressed, when observing the shape, material, and characteristics as a whole, it cannot be seen as explicitly expressing or depicting specific sexual parts of a person in a way that seriously damages or distorts human dignity and value."

The first and second trials accepted these claims. The first trial stated, "Just because the overall appearance is similar to a human body or the expression is specific and explicit does not mean it seriously damages or distorts human dignity and value or harms normal sexual modesty." The second trial also maintained the first trial's judgment, saying, "Although this item expresses the appearance of an adult woman more precisely than previous products, it does not reach the level of being indistinguishable from an actual person."

However, the Supreme Court decided that the second trial's judgment must be reconsidered. The court viewed the real doll's length, weight, and facial impression as a "sexual device realistically modeled after the physical appearance of females under the age of 16." It particularly pointed out, "Using this item as intended treats children as sexual objects, commodifies children's sexuality, and raises concerns about increasing the risk of potential sexual crimes against children."

Referring to the Criminal Act, the court noted Article 305, Paragraph 1, which punishes those who commit rape or molestation against persons under 13 years old, and Paragraph 2, which punishes those aged 19 or older who commit rape or molestation against persons aged 13 to under 16, stating that these crimes apply even if the victim consents. The court argued that sexual activity between an adult aged 19 or older and a minor under 16 is punishable under criminal law.

It is difficult to deny that continuous exposure to sexual expressions targeting children and adolescents, even if fictional, can form distorted perceptions and abnormal attitudes toward the sexuality of children and adolescents, and may also lead to sexual crimes against them.

The court also pointed out that directly engaging in sexual acts with dolls realistically modeled after minors' appearances can foster distorted perceptions and abnormal attitudes that treat children as sexual objects, commodify children's sexuality, and allow violent or one-sided sexual relations. It judged that there is a concern about increasing the risk of potential sexual crimes against children.

Legal circles expect that this Supreme Court ruling will prompt customs authorities, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, and the National Assembly to establish detailed criteria regarding types of real dolls that cannot be imported. In fact, other trials have ruled that if real dolls are used for purposes similar to prostitution in experience rooms, their import can be banned.