Supreme Court: "Sex dolls cannot be categorically deemed obscene"... Upholds ruling that import ban was unlawful

[The Financial News] The Supreme Court of Korea has reaffirmed its earlier precedent that imports of sex dolls—life-sized adult products modeled on the human body—cannot be uniformly banned. The court held that it is unlawful for customs authorities to block clearance based solely on the appearance of the goods, without specifically examining the purpose of import or who will use them.

According to the legal community on the 3rd, the First Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of Korea, presided over by Justice Shin Suk-hee of the Supreme Court of Korea, upheld a lower court ruling that found in favor of distributor A in its appeal seeking to overturn a decision by Gimpo Customs to withhold import clearance.
The case dates back to March 2020. At that time, Company A declared the import of three sex dolls, but when customs authorities put the clearance on hold, the company filed an administrative lawsuit.
Both the trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of Company A, finding that sex dolls do not constitute obscene materials whose import is prohibited under the Customs Act.
The lower court defined the concept of obscenity as "material that, by an explicit and graphic depiction of sexual body parts or acts in a blatantly sexual manner, seriously undermines or distorts human dignity and value," and concluded that "one cannot simply deem an item obscene solely because it closely resembles the human form."

The Supreme Court also found that the lower court’s judgment was correct.
The Supreme Court first reiterated the legal principle that a sex doll may be subject to a clearance hold as an "item that offends public morals" if it "bears obscenity by explicitly expressing or depicting sexual body parts in a blatantly sexual manner to such an extent that, in and of itself, it can be evaluated as seriously undermining or distorting human dignity and value, or if it constitutes a 'sexual device that realistically imitates the physical appearance of a minor under the age of 16.'"
However, the court found that the sex dolls in question "do not fall under items that offend public morals by blatantly and graphically expressing or depicting sexual body parts to such an extent that they can be evaluated as seriously undermining human dignity."
At the same time, the court also pointed to the potential risks if sex dolls move beyond the realm of private life and are distributed more broadly.
The Supreme Court added, "Even if a sex doll does not fall under an 'item that offends public morals,' there is room to recognize a 'risk of offending public morals' if it is not used discreetly as a sexual device within the sphere of an individual's private life, but is distributed and used outside private spaces."
The court further held, "For a customs director to impose a clearance hold on a sex doll on the grounds of a risk of offending public morals, they must investigate the purpose of import, the person who will use the item, the space and environment in which it will be used, and the manner of use, and confirm whether there are specific grounds to find that there is a risk of offending public morals."


sms@fnnews.com Sung Min-seo Reporter