The Supreme Court's first definitive ruling punishing a business owner for violating the Youth Protection Act by admitting a minor as a guest at a 'room cafe with a closed-off structure' was reported on the 13th. The essence is that teenagers should not be allowed to enter room cafes that cannot be viewed from the outside and which have bedding.
The Supreme Court's third division (Chief Justice Oh Seok-jun) confirmed a fine of 2 million won against a room cafe owner, identified as Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of violating the Youth Protection Act on the 29th of last month.
Mr. A operated a room cafe with a closed-off structure in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province. It is reported that the 33 independent rooms had glass windows covered with film. It featured mattresses and televisions inside the rooms. The business was registered as a regular restaurant.
Mr. A was indicted for allowing an 18-year-old woman as a guest, having been caught on the 18th of March 2023, and for admitting a minor in a venue prohibited from allowing minors. Investigations revealed that Mr. A did not verify the age of the guest at the time.
During the trial, Mr. A claimed, "This room cafe does not fall under the category of venues prohibited from allowing minors under the Youth Protection Act."
However, the first trial imposed a fine of 2 million won on Mr. A, determining that his room cafe met the criteria of a 'venue prohibited from allowing minors' as specified in the Youth Protection Act. The Youth Protection Act defines such venues without regard to their licensing, reporting, or registration forms as those where "there is a concern for sexual acts occurring among unspecified individuals." Moreover, the amendment to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family's notification regarding venues prohibited from allowing minors also includes room cafes classified as 'facilities with closed-off or partitioned spaces.'
The first trial court stated, "A room cafe employee testified that they had discovered a condom after a guest's departure, and considering that the cafe operated in an unmanned state during daytime hours, making it difficult for management to prevent sexual acts, as well as Mr. A's use of 'minor entry allowed' as promotional wording, this room cafe realistically falls under a business where there is a concern for sexual acts occurring."
Subsequently, the second trial made the same determination as the first trial. This time, the Supreme Court also affirmed Mr. A's 2 million won fine, stating, "There was no error in the lower court’s misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding venues prohibited from allowing minors under the Youth Protection Act."