Skip to main content

Park Han-chul, center, president of South Korea's Constitutional Court, sits with other judges before the judgment at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015. The court on Thursday abolished a 62-year-old law that bans extramarital affairs.

Lee Jin-man/AP

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

The ruling by the constitutional Court that the law suppresses personal freedoms 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.

Story continues below advertisement

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

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.

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.

The court was acting on 17 complaints submitted from 2009 to last year by individuals who have been punished for adultery or whose trials have been suspended, pending Thursday's ruling.

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.

"(The law) excessively restricts citizens' basic rights, such as the right to determine sexual affairs," the court said in explaining that the law no longer contributed to overall public interest.

Story continues below advertisement

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."

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter