The aim of this study was to investigate the physical properties of visible light curing Glass Ionomer cement for restorative esthetic filling. The control group was the autopolymerizing GC Fuji II Glass Ionomer cement (2.2: 1 P/L ratio) and the experimental groups were made by following procedure. To induce the polymerization by visible light, the powder of GC Fuji II GI cement and the liquid of Vitrabond for base & liner were mixed in an amalgam capsule with 2.5:1, 3.0:1, 3.5:1 P/L ratio (% wt/wt). After fabrication of specimens, compressive strength, fracture toughness ($K_{IC}$) Scanning Electron Microscope and X-ray Diffraction, water-leachable content, marginal leakage and surface roughness were studied. The results were as follows: 1. Only experimental No. 1 group (visible light curing) showed less compressive strength than control group 1 hour after curing. Strength was increased with aging in all groups, so the compressive strength of light curing groups was no less than that of autopolymerizing group after 3 weeks. 2. Experimental No.3 group (visible light curing) was inferior to No.2 group (visible light curing) in fracture resistance but light curing groups were more resistant to fracture than autopolymerizing group and showed ductile fracture pattern as compared with the brittle fracture pattern of autopolymerizing group. 3. From scanning electron microscopic image, various sized unreacted powder particles, surrounded by silica gel, were embedded in polysalt matrix. Light curing groups showed little crack and more dense unreacted particles than autopolymerizing group. 4. From X-ray diffraction analysis, GC Fuji II Glass Ionomer cement powder and all groups showed glassy appearance but light curing groups seemed to be more intensive in crystaline than autopolymerizing group. S. The most significant dissolution was shown in early setting period in all group. Light curing groups were dissolved less than autopolymerizing group. 6. Marginal leakage was not different significantly in case of cavity margin composed of same tooth structure (ex. only enamel margin, only dentin margin) but much more leakage was shown in dentin/cementum margin than enamel margin. In only case of only enamel margin, light curing groups were superior to autopolymerizing group. 7. All groups showed relatively smooth surface, which irregularity was less than $1{mu}m$. Light curing groups were smoother than autopolymerizing group.