- Supreme Court Division 3 overturns not-guilty verdict for room cafe owner A, sends case back to Suwon District Court
- 14 out of 16 rooms had enclosed structures... Found occupied by two teenage boys and girls aged 14–17 during crackdown
- Appellate court ruled not guilty stating "it was not a match between strangers," but Supreme Court criticizes the interpretation as "excessively narrow"ခန်း
- Criteria for applying the Youth Protection Act to new, variant room cafes clarified... Crackdowns expected to gain momentum
The Supreme Court has made a final ruling that variant room cafes featuring enclosed spaces equipped with bedding are harmful businesses where youth access and employment are prohibited.
According to the legal community on the 31st, Supreme Court Division 3 (Presiding Justice Seo Gyeong-hwan) overturned the lower court's ruling, which had acquitted owner A on charges of violating the Youth Protection Act, and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court.
From March 2022 to February 2023, A operated a room cafe in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province, that blocked outside visibility. A was indicted for failing to post a "Youth Access and Employment Prohibited Business" sign at the entrance and for letting minors enter without checking their IDs. At the time, 14 out of the 16 rooms in the establishment had structures that completely blocked the inside view when the sliding doors were closed. Each room was furnished with a floor table, a TV, as well as mattresses and large pillows. During a police crackdown, teenage boys and girls aged 14 to 17 were found using four of the rooms in pairs of two.
Judgments in the lower courts were divided. The first instance court sentenced A to a fine of 2 million won based on the enclosed room structure and business operation method. Conversely, the second instance court overturned the ruling and acquitted A. It narrowly interpreted the Youth Protection Act's provision regarding "the risk of physical contact or sexual acts between unspecified persons" as applying only to hostesses and customers of sex trade businesses or contact between unfamiliar customers. The reasoning was that the owner did not directly provide sexual services or connect unfamiliar customers to the space.
The Supreme Court directly refuted the appellate court's legal interpretation. Considering the legal provisions and legislative purpose, the Court drew a line, stating there is no legal basis to limit the scope of unspecified persons to entertainment hosts or strangers. It judged that if the facility is open for anyone to use, difficult to see into from the outside when doors are closed, and equipped with mattresses and pillows, there is a sufficient risk of physical contact or sexual acts.
A Supreme Court official explained, "This ruling clarifies that new forms of businesses, such as room cafes, can fall under youth-access-and-employment-prohibited establishments under the Youth Protection Act if they possess enclosed structures and facilities accessible to unspecified customers."