The Supreme Court has ruled that a "room cafe" where the interior is not visible from the outside is subject to restrictions on minors' entry, overturning a lower court decision that had acquitted the operator of such a cafe. The Supreme Court on the 28th made a final ruling that a person in their 20s, A, who operated a room cafe in Gangnam, Seoul, was guilty of violating the Juvenile Protection Act. The room cafe in question had a structure where the interior could not be seen from the outside, and a door that could only be opened from the inside. The operator, A, was charged with allowing a high school student to enter the room cafe at around 10:30 pm on September 8, 2020. The lower courts, however, found A not guilty, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision. The Supreme Court stated that "the purpose of the Juvenile Protection Act is to protect minors from harmful environments, and the room cafe in this case falls under the category of places where minors are prohibited from entering." The Supreme Court added that "even if the interior is not visible from the outside, if the nature of the place is such that it can be used similarly to a private room, it is subject to restrictions on minors' entry."

The Supreme Court recently overturned a lower court's ruling that deemed a certain room cafe in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province, as a venue where underage individuals are prohibited from entering. The court's 1st division, led by Chief Justice Kim Gyeong-hwan, reversed the lower court's decision and ordered the case back to the Gyeonggi Provincial Court.

The case involves a man named Kim G, who ran the room cafe from March 2022 to February 2023. Prosecutors argued that the cafe operated despite not checking the ages of the 8 underage individuals (ages 14-17) it allowed to enter. Kim was charged with violating the Youth Protection Law. His defense argued that the cafe was not a venue where underage individuals should be prohibited from entering.

The lower court had previously ruled that the café should be classified as a venue where underage individuals are prohibited from entering due to the potential for intimate encounters among users. The court cited the café's structure, including the presence of televisions and mats for sitting, which could lead to physical contact among users. It also noted that most rooms in the café were not fully enclosed, making it difficult to see inside and thus resembling a private space where intimate acts could occur.

However, the 2nd division of the Supreme Court disagreed with this assessment. They argued that the definition of a "non-specific clientele" under the Youth Protection Law refers to situations where intimacy occurs between individuals who don't know each other or between clients and escorts who do not know each other. The court ruled that the room cafe did not fall under this category, thus granting Kim G a not guilty verdict.

The Supreme Court further stated that the café's structure made it highly likely that intimate acts could occur inside, but this did not classify it as a venue where underage individuals should be prohibited from entering.