On January 25th, the Court withdrew the decision that Gimpo International Airport customs office made to withhold the import of a Real Doll and decided to allow the import of Real Dolls. A Real Doll is a full-body doll that has sexual functions in order to serve as a sex partner, and for a time, there were lots of debates about their morality. In the meantime, according to Article 234 of the Customs Law, goods that harm morals cannot be imported or exported, so the customs offices withheld the Real Dolls’ customs clearance. The customs offices argued that a Real Doll’s pubic hair and vulva are explicitly portrayed, resulting in harm to moral beliefs. The Court, however, defined Real Dolls to be sexual devices that are generally only used in private. The Court had supported that Real Dolls do not depict body parts or sexual conduct that seriously damages or distorts human dignity and value. Moreover, as sexual devices are used in private homes, the state does not have the right to interfere, in order to protect human dignity and freedom. As the customs offices did not follow the Supreme Court’s judgement, the future of the Real Dolls import remains uncertain. This judgment has sparked a debate across many nations. There have been various reactions such as “We should respect any sexual preferences,” “It might cause sexual insults that Real Dolls are women objectification,” “Pervert crimes might decrease,” and “There will be no problem with meticulous management of supply and demand.”