Supreme Court Rules Room Cafes Pose Risk of Physical Contact, Ban Youth Access

TV-equipped, enclosed room cafes are deemed to pose a risk of physical contact among unspecified customers, thus falling under establishments prohibited from allowing or employing minors, according to a ruling by South Korea's Supreme Court.

On August 31, the Supreme Court's first division, led by Justice Seo Kyung-hwan, overturned a lower court's not guilty verdict against an individual identified as A, sending the case back to the Suwon District Court.

A was charged with allowing eight minors to enter a room cafe in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province, from March 2022 to February 2023, without displaying the required signage prohibiting youth access and employment. The room cafe consisted of 16 enclosed rooms with mats on the floor and televisions installed.

The case centered on whether A's room cafe provided services that could lead to physical contact or sexual acts among unspecified individuals, as defined by the youth protection law, and whether the law applied only to establishments involved in prostitution or also to those merely providing a space for friends or couples.

According to Article 2, Section 5 of the youth protection law, establishments prohibited from allowing or employing minors are defined as those providing services that pose a risk of sexual acts or similar behaviors among unspecified individuals, as determined by the Youth Protection Committee and announced by the Minister of Gender Equality and Family.

The first trial concluded that the structure and operation of the room cafe warranted its classification as an establishment prohibited from allowing or employing minors, resulting in a fine of 2 million won for A.

However, the second trial did not find A guilty, stating, "Even if it is a room cafe of this nature, the likelihood of sexual contact or acts occurring is low, and the term 'unspecified individuals' in Article 2, Section 5 refers to establishments involved in prostitution or 'customers who do not know each other,' meaning this room cafe does not fall under the category of establishments prohibited from allowing or employing minors as defined by the law."

The Supreme Court, however, accepted A's appeal, stating, "The lower court's judgment violated logical reasoning and the rules of experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, and misinterpreted the legal principles regarding the youth protection law, affecting the verdict."

The court explained, "This room cafe is a place accessible to unspecified customers, with a structure that makes it difficult to see inside from outside, and it falls under a business model that poses a risk of physical contact or sexual acts, such as kissing, occurring inside."

It further pointed out, "The business model of establishments prohibited from allowing or employing minors under the youth protection law cannot be interpreted as limited to cases of physical contact between entertainment workers and unspecified customers or between customers who do not know each other."