The Supreme Court has ruled that the typical tattooing practices performed by non-medical professionals do not constitute unauthorized medical practice. This marks a significant change in legal precedent after 34 years since the court's previous ruling in 1992 that deemed such actions a violation of medical law.
On May 21, the Supreme Court's full bench unanimously overturned the lower court's ruling that had imposed fines on defendants A and B for violating medical law and sent the case back to the Seoul Western District Court and Suwon District Court with an acquittal recommendation.
Defendant A was charged with performing scalp tattooing at a beauty salon in Yongsan, Seoul, from January to December 2020, while Defendant B was charged with providing lettering tattoos at a fashion accessory store in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, in May 2019. Both were fined 1.5 million won and 1 million won, respectively, in the first and second trials.
The key issue in these cases was whether typical cosmetic tattooing practices fell under the unauthorized medical practices prohibited by Article 27, Section 1 of the former medical law.
The Supreme Court stated, "The typical cosmetic tattooing practices performed by the non-medical defendants do not constitute unauthorized medical practices as defined by Article 27, Section 1 of the former medical law." It added that the lower court had maintained the guilty verdict from the first trial, which misinterpreted the legal principles regarding medical practices and affected the judgment.
The court explained, "Since the Supreme Court's ruling in May 1992, which classified eyebrow tattooing as unauthorized medical practice, advancements in medical technology and changes in the healthcare environment have significantly improved access to medical services for consumers. Additionally, the general public's knowledge and practice of health and hygiene have markedly improved."
It further noted, "Individuals seeking tattoos are in a position to freely decide whether to undergo tattooing as a means of expressing their individuality and pursuing happiness, based on information regarding the health risks and management associated with typical cosmetic tattooing practices."
The court emphasized that when determining whether typical cosmetic tattooing constitutes unauthorized medical practice, various interpretations should favor the constitutional rights of individuals seeking tattoos, including their freedom of occupation, freedom of expression, and the right to pursue happiness.
Moreover, the court pointed out that tattooing requires not only technical skills for safe procedures but also the ability to achieve a desired level of aesthetic quality, which is not necessarily possessed by medical professionals. It warned that a blanket prohibition against non-medical professionals could infringe upon the constitutional rights of individuals seeking cosmetic tattooing, including their general personality rights and freedom of expression derived from Article 10 of the Constitution.
A Supreme Court official stated, "According to the full bench ruling, typical cosmetic tattooing practices are no longer considered unauthorized medical practices under Article 27, Section 1 of the former medical law. Comprehensive regulations regarding this matter are expected to be implemented under the Tattoo Law and related legislation, which will take effect on October 29, 2027."
The official added, "However, even before the implementation of the Tattoo Law, if a tattoo artist causes injury due to negligence, it does not negate the possibility of criminal penalties or the introduction of regulations to protect public health as defined by relevant laws such as the Criminal Code or Public Health Management Act."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.