Recently, AION 2 has found itself in hot water, as users have been exploiting the character customisation suite to recreate famous female idols—minors included—and dressing them in revealing outfits to share screenshots. The debate is polarising: some claim it is their right to enjoy a game they paid for, while others rightly label it as digital sexual violence.

In this edition of precedent.zip, we break down the situation through three lenses: ① the criminal liability of the creators, ② civil lawsuits regarding portrait rights, and ③ the potential responsibility of the game developer as a platform, all backed by real court rulings and statutes.

The first hurdle is Article 14-2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, commonly known as the 'Deepfake Punishment Law'.

This legislation dictates that if one edits, synthesises, or processes imagery or audio of a person’s face, body, or voice without their consent in a way that triggers sexual desire or humiliation, a crime is committed.

Users might attempt the 'it's just 3D graphics, not a photo edit' defence. However, the legal precedent set by our courts regarding deepfakes focuses not on the 'technical method' but on the 'perception of the observer'.

In a ruling on child and adolescent obscenity, the Supreme Court stated, 'It must be judged carefully by considering the appearance, physical development, voice, tone, and clothing, as perceived objectively by an average member of society.' This effectively establishes that even non-human animations or graphics can be subject to criminal punishment.

By this standard, if the graphics in AION 2 are realistic enough to be identified as 'Idol A' and are dressed in sexually suggestive attire, they could be classified as deepfake content. If the target is a minor, it is highly likely to be treated as 'child and adolescent sexual exploitation material'.

As we have seen, the courts care less about the 'reality' of the subject and more about the 'perception' of the output.

Beyond criminal charges, civil litigation presents a more direct threat, particularly concerning 'portrait rights'.

The Supreme Court has clearly defined portrait rights as being rooted in Article 10 of the Constitution (Human Dignity and the Right to Pursuit of Happiness), and our judiciary protects these rights quite aggressively.

When a user shares these 'presets' to gain clout on YouTube or notoriety in-game, it is a textbook case of using another person's likeness without consent.

In a recent ruling, the Seoul Western District Court (2022Na42997) confirmed that creating an adult game character that resembles a specific person is a clear infringement of portrait rights.

In this case, 'sexuality' was a key factor. The court noted, 'Because the character is depicted sexually, there is a high probability that the subject feels shame or discomfort, making the infringement severe.'

Therefore, even if an act doesn't cross the line into criminal activity, dressing up characters as celebrities in suggestive clothing is a civil minefield.

NCSOFT cannot simply wash its hands of this. While the company might argue, 'We only sold the tools and the outfits; what the users do with them is their freedom,' they have already acknowledged the issue to Gamemeca, stating, '(AION 2) is an adult-rated game, and we operate in strict compliance with the ratings and regulations.'

However, recent court rulings suggest that platforms profiting from such content have nowhere to hide.

The Seoul Central District Court recently ruled that online platforms can be held liable as 'joint tortfeasors' if they fail to manage or control illegal acts by individual sellers.

Furthermore, the Seoul Western District Court held a distributor liable for joint torts because they 'formed a cooperative relationship for the purpose of pursuing profit in the game industry.'

Considering this, the chances of a developer supplying highly realistic customisation tools facing legal repercussions are far from zero.

The fact that these characters are rampant and dressed in suggestive attire—potentially violating the Sexual Crimes Punishment Act or portrait rights—is becoming clear through media reports. Since NCSOFT has issued statements, they are clearly aware of the situation.

Unlike an open marketplace, a game company has 100% control over its internal data. NCSOFT has the technical authority to delete these presets or ban the users involved.

Most importantly, NCSOFT not only takes a cut from these trades but also manufactures and sells the very 'revealing outfits' used for these presets. If users buy these items to dress up celebrity lookalikes, NCSOFT is effectively profiting from the fruit of illegal activities.

If NCSOFT continues to ignore this while profiting from outfit sales, they risk being classified as a joint tortfeasor under the legal principles we've discussed.

The message from these precedents is clear: as technology blurs the line between virtual and reality, legal responsibility will be applied just as harshly, if not more so.

In-game freedom is worth defending, but infringing on the rights of others—and profiting from it—cannot be shielded under the guise of 'freedom'. It is time for both users and developers to accept a heavier burden of legal and ethical responsibility.