Court rules seduction law invalid

The Constitutional Court ruled yesterday that a clause in the country`s criminal law that penalizes a man who lures a woman into sexual relations through a false promise of marriage, is unconstitutional.

Six of the nine-justices at the court ruled that Clause 304 of the law, which was enacted 56 years ago, is in violation of the basic law.

The clause stipulates that a man is to be sentenced to a maximum prison term of two years or a maximum fine of 5 million won ($4,332) for luring a chaste woman to have sex with him through false promises of marriage or other deceptions.

"(The clause) is against gender equality, and under the purpose of protecting women, it denies their right to make their own sexual decision. The law is retrogressing in light of women`s dignity and values," said the court in its ruling.



"Personal sexual acts belong to the secrete domains of privacy, and the state should refrain from interfering in or regulating them. Strict standards should be applied in applying the criminal law in cases of sexual privacy."

A man, surnamed Lim, was sentenced in 2006 to a jail term for having sex with a colleague after declaring several times that he intended to introduce her to his parents as his future wife.

Lim filed a petition to the court, arguing that the clause infringed on the basic constitutionally-protected rights to pursue happiness and make his or her own sexual decision.

The court ruling appears to reflect a changing social ambience. The clause was enacted in 1953 when women largely felt the need of such legal protection, as women`s chastity was regarded as crucial for marriage.

However, the clause is now seen as a by-product of a male-centered patriarchal society and as unfair since it only punishes men and views women as subjects to be protected.

Women activists have recently raised their voices against the clause, arguing it is outdated and biased. The Ministry of Gender Equality has also maintained that the clause is unconstitutional as it restricts the victims only to women, which could be seen as belittling women.

In 2002 the court ruled 7-to-2 that the clause was constitutional, as it helped preserve traditional moral values of chastity in society. (sshluck@heraldm.com)







By Song Sang-ho