A marriage photo between Yuri Tolotsko and Realdoll Margo, a Kazakh man who gathered attention by having a wedding with’Realdoll’, an adult product that emulates a human body. Photo = Yuri tolochko (yurii_tolochko) Instagram
“Unlike general pornography that expresses sexual content externally, sexual devices are merely tools that are secretly used to satisfy users’ sexual desires. State involvement in the private and confidential areas of the individual should be minimized.”
Part of the judgment of the 5th administration of the Seoul Administrative Court
The court ruling that the customs’ disposition that blocked the import of the so-called’real doll’, an adult doll modeled after a human body, was illegal. It is a judgment based on the Supreme Court ruling that defined real dolls as’a sexual device within the private sphere of an adult’ rather than as a’goods that harm the customs’.
According to the court on the 25th, the 5th administrative department of the Seoul Administrative Court (Director Yang-Jun Park) recently ruled over the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by A company, an adult product importer, against the head of the Gimpo Airport Customs Office, saying, “Please cancel Realdoll’s suspension of import clearance.
Company A imported real dolls from China in January of last year and filed an import declaration with the customs of Gimpo Airport, but the customs office suspended import customs, saying that it is a’goods that harm the customs’ stipulated in the Customs Act. Company A objected to the disposition and submitted a request for examination to the Korea Customs Service, but when it was not accepted, it filed this lawsuit.
The judge said, “Although the appearance of Real Doll gives a vulgar and promiscuous feeling, it cannot be seen as expressing or portraying it in an explicit way that can be assessed as seriously damaging or distorting the dignity and value of a person.”
He pointed out that unlike general pornography, it should be very cautious to ban imports by treating sexual devices, which are tools secretly used to satisfy users’ sexual desires, as pornography. The judge said, “As a matter that is deeply related to individual privacy, the right to pursue happiness, and diversity, the right to punish the state is not an appropriate field to intervene excessively.”
The judge also judged that “the product does not resemble a real person to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish, and there seems to be little room for confusion with a real person.” He said, “It is only a full-body doll in the form of a woman, and it does not explicitly emphasize a specific sexual part.”
Earlier, the Supreme Court ruled in a similar lawsuit in June 2019 with the effect that “the import of Real Doll should not be blocked.” At the time, the Supreme Court decided that there was no problem with the court ruling, which said that “real doll cannot be viewed as pornography.
Choi Na-sil reporter [email protected]
