Korean high court strikes down adultery law

[Anonymous]

http://i.cbc.ca/1.2973047.1424933940!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/ok-so-ri.jpg">

South Korean actress Ok So-ri is shown at a Dec. 17, 2008 court date. Ok received a suspended sentence for adultery, and would lose custody of her daughter in divorce proceedings.



A South Korean court on Thursday abolished a 62-year-old law that bans extramarital affairs, ruling that the law suppresses personal freedoms.



The ruling by the Constitutional Court could potentially affect thousands of individuals who faced adultery charges since Oct. 31, 2008, a day after the court previously upheld the adultery ban. Current charges could be thrown out and anyone given a guilty verdict would be eligible for a retrial, according to a court official, who didn't want to be named, citing office rules.



Prosecutors have indicted more than 5,400 people on adultery charges between November 2008 and January this year, according to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.



Under the law having sex with a married person who is not your spouse was punishable by up to two years in prison. Nearly 53,000 South Koreans have been indicted on adultery charges since 1985, but prison terms have been rare.



The debate over the adultery ban, which has been part of South Korea's criminal law since 1953, intensified in recent years as fast-changing social trends challenged conservative traditional values.



Imprisonment rare in recent years



Supporters of the law had claimed it promotes monogamy and keeps families intact, while opponents argued that the government has no right to interfere with people's private lives and determine their sexual affairs.



Seven judges of the court, which rules on the constitutionality of laws, supported the ruling, while two dissented, the court said. The support of six judges is needed to abolish a law.



It was the fifth time the court had reviewed the adultery ban since 1990. The last time, in October 2008, five of the judges said the law was unconstitutional.



Legal experts have said that the adultery ban had lost much of its effect as people were increasingly settling their marriage disputes in civil courts. Adultery can be prosecuted only on a complaint made by a spouse who has filed for divorce. The case immediately ends if the plaintiff drops the charge, which is common when financial settlements are reached.



"Recently, it was extremely rare for a person to serve a prison term for adultery," said Lim Ji-bong, a law professor at Sogang University in Seoul. "The number of indictments has decreased as charges are frequently dropped."

[Anonymous]

http://i.cbc.ca/1.2973047.1424933940!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/ok-so-ri.jpg">

South Korean actress Ok So-ri is shown at a Dec. 17, 2008 court date. Ok received a suspended sentence for adultery, and would lose custody of her daughter in divorce proceedings.



A South Korean court on Thursday abolished a 62-year-old law that bans extramarital affairs, ruling that the law suppresses personal freedoms.



The ruling by the Constitutional Court could potentially affect thousands of individuals who faced adultery charges since Oct. 31, 2008, a day after the court previously upheld the adultery ban. Current charges could be thrown out and anyone given a guilty verdict would be eligible for a retrial, according to a court official, who didn't want to be named, citing office rules.



Prosecutors have indicted more than 5,400 people on adultery charges between November 2008 and January this year, according to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.



Under the law having sex with a married person who is not your spouse was punishable by up to two years in prison. Nearly 53,000 South Koreans have been indicted on adultery charges since 1985, but prison terms have been rare.



The debate over the adultery ban, which has been part of South Korea's criminal law since 1953, intensified in recent years as fast-changing social trends challenged conservative traditional values.



Imprisonment rare in recent years



Supporters of the law had claimed it promotes monogamy and keeps families intact, while opponents argued that the government has no right to interfere with people's private lives and determine their sexual affairs.



Seven judges of the court, which rules on the constitutionality of laws, supported the ruling, while two dissented, the court said. The support of six judges is needed to abolish a law.



It was the fifth time the court had reviewed the adultery ban since 1990. The last time, in October 2008, five of the judges said the law was unconstitutional.



Legal experts have said that the adultery ban had lost much of its effect as people were increasingly settling their marriage disputes in civil courts. Adultery can be prosecuted only on a complaint made by a spouse who has filed for divorce. The case immediately ends if the plaintiff drops the charge, which is common when financial settlements are reached.



"Recently, it was extremely rare for a person to serve a prison term for adultery," said Lim Ji-bong, a law professor at Sogang University in Seoul. "The number of indictments has decreased as charges are frequently dropped."

Did that law include paying for sex in it's definition of prostitution? If so, half the adult population of South Korea would have a criminal record judging by the size of that country's sex for sale industry.

[Romero]

Condom Maker's Stock Soars After South Korea Legalizes Adultery



A South Korean court on Thursday abolished a 62-year-old law that criminalized extramarital affairs, and the stock price of a prominent condom maker immediately shot up 15 percent.



The stock price of South Korean condom maker Unidus Corp. shot up after the court ruling, surging by the daily limit of 15 percent on South Korea's Kosdaq market.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/south-korean-court-abolis_n_6757592.html">//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/south-korean-court-abolis_n_6757592.html

[Anonymous]

http://i.cbc.ca/1.2973047.1424933940!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/ok-so-ri.jpg">

South Korean actress Ok So-ri is shown at a Dec. 17, 2008 court date. Ok received a suspended sentence for adultery, and would lose custody of her daughter in divorce proceedings.



A South Korean court on Thursday abolished a 62-year-old law that bans extramarital affairs, ruling that the law suppresses personal freedoms.



The ruling by the Constitutional Court could potentially affect thousands of individuals who faced adultery charges since Oct. 31, 2008, a day after the court previously upheld the adultery ban. Current charges could be thrown out and anyone given a guilty verdict would be eligible for a retrial, according to a court official, who didn't want to be named, citing office rules.



Prosecutors have indicted more than 5,400 people on adultery charges between November 2008 and January this year, according to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office.



Under the law having sex with a married person who is not your spouse was punishable by up to two years in prison. Nearly 53,000 South Koreans have been indicted on adultery charges since 1985, but prison terms have been rare.



The debate over the adultery ban, which has been part of South Korea's criminal law since 1953, intensified in recent years as fast-changing social trends challenged conservative traditional values.



Imprisonment rare in recent years



Supporters of the law had claimed it promotes monogamy and keeps families intact, while opponents argued that the government has no right to interfere with people's private lives and determine their sexual affairs.



Seven judges of the court, which rules on the constitutionality of laws, supported the ruling, while two dissented, the court said. The support of six judges is needed to abolish a law.



It was the fifth time the court had reviewed the adultery ban since 1990. The last time, in October 2008, five of the judges said the law was unconstitutional.



Legal experts have said that the adultery ban had lost much of its effect as people were increasingly settling their marriage disputes in civil courts. Adultery can be prosecuted only on a complaint made by a spouse who has filed for divorce. The case immediately ends if the plaintiff drops the charge, which is common when financial settlements are reached.



"Recently, it was extremely rare for a person to serve a prison term for adultery," said Lim Ji-bong, a law professor at Sogang University in Seoul. "The number of indictments has decreased as charges are frequently dropped."

I know some if not most people would consider this progress..



I have mixed feelings about this.

 ac_unsure

[Frost]

ac_rollseyes

Condom Sales Skyrocket in South Korea as Adultery Is Decriminalized



http://www.newsweek.com/condom-sales-skyrocket-south-korea-adultery-decriminalized-309787?piano_d=1">http://www.newsweek.com/condom-sales-sk ... ?piano_d=1">http://www.newsweek.com/condom-sales-skyrocket-south-korea-adultery-decriminalized-309787?piano_d=1



http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/headline/public/2015/02/26/condomz.jpg?itok=vG9Lz3bq">

[Anonymous]

ac_rollseyes

Condom Sales Skyrocket in South Korea as Adultery Is Decriminalized



http://www.newsweek.com/condom-sales-skyrocket-south-korea-adultery-decriminalized-309787?piano_d=1">http://www.newsweek.com/condom-sales-sk ... ?piano_d=1">http://www.newsweek.com/condom-sales-skyrocket-south-korea-adultery-decriminalized-309787?piano_d=1



http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/headline/public/2015/02/26/condomz.jpg?itok=vG9Lz3bq">

 ac_blush

[Frost]

Kind of pathetic isn't it.

Well there is still the civil courts that will take some action if wanted .

[Anonymous]

Kind of pathetic isn't it.

Well there is still the civil courts that will take some action if wanted .

The ruling will never be overturned Blue.

[Frost]

Well it shouldn't, but still sad that people would go out on a so called loved one.

If you don't care for someone just break it off, and move on.

I know some places it's alright, but it does not make it right, especially when it hurts someone.

[Anonymous]

Well it shouldn't, but still sad that people would go out on a so called loved one.

If you don't care for someone just break it off, and move on.

I know some places it's alright, but it does not make it right, especially when it hurts someone.

Koreans likely see this as a break with their less developed past..



It was an authoritarian state not that long ago, just like Taiwan was.

[Frost]

I agree with it theoretically for freedom, but morally not so much.

I'm not married, but I wouldn't want someone fulling around on me, and i sure wouldn't full around.

The ruling is alright, people will find a way regardless.

[Anonymous]

I agree with it theoretically for freedom, but morally not so much.

I'm not married, but I wouldn't want someone fulling around on me, and i sure wouldn't full around.

The ruling is alright, people will find a way regardless.

I feel much the same Blue which is why I have mixed feelings about it.

 ac_unsure

[Anonymous]

I agree with it theoretically for freedom, but morally not so much.

I'm not married, but I wouldn't want someone fulling around on me, and i sure wouldn't full around.

The ruling is alright, people will find a way regardless.

It was about fucking time. A prosperous NE Asian country with a Muddle East type law??

[Anonymous]

I agree with it theoretically for freedom, but morally not so much.

I'm not married, but I wouldn't want someone fulling around on me, and i sure wouldn't full around.

The ruling is alright, people will find a way regardless.

It was about fucking time. A prosperous NE Asian country with a Muddle East type law??

Comparing Korea to say Saudi Arabia?

[Anonymous]

I agree with it theoretically for freedom, but morally not so much.

I'm not married, but I wouldn't want someone fulling around on me, and i sure wouldn't full around.

The ruling is alright, people will find a way regardless.

It was about fucking time. A prosperous NE Asian country with a Muddle East type law??

Comparing Korea to say Saudi Arabia?

Of course not. I'm saying the law is antiquated and out step with a modern South Korea.