By Kang Young-hoon

Article 92-6 of the country’s Military Criminal Act has punished sexual relations between men in the military, either on or off duty, with up to two years in prison under an “indecent acts” clause. The District Court found that the provisions of this law violated principles of clarity, no excess, and equality.

The court first pointed out that, unlike the penal code and sexual violence punishment law, the provisions of the law are unclear so that investigative agencies and courts can arbitrarily interpret and apply the law.

The court also said, "Forcible acts of harassment and indecent acts by agreement between the parties should be subject to different penalties, and the provisions do not clearly define the compulsion's requirements for the establishment of crime."

"It also exemplifies 'anal sex' about the degree of behavior, but it does not provide a standard for 'other acts,' and it is ambiguous whether it targets only men's acts or women's acts.”

The judiciary said, "We are gradually moving away from the negative view that same-sex sexual behavior is abnormal and violates the social morality of society." "It is difficult to see the danger of directly harming conservation."

The judiciary said, “In the Constitution, the principle of equality must not be legislated to discriminate without reasonable ground or to discriminate without reasonable ground to interpret and apply the law.” It reflects the attitude that sexual behavior based on typical heterosexuality is 'normal' and sexual minority's sexual behavior is 'abnormal'.

"In mature democratic societies, differences should be recognized, but discrimination without a good reason should never be tolerated," he said. "If the discrimination is simply a minority, it cannot be justified." Read more via YNA