Court Ruling on Eyebrow Tattoo Procedures by Beauticians Without Medical Licenses?

Acquittal on Charges of Violating Medical Law
"Semi-permanent Makeup for Cosmetic Purposes Cannot Be Considered Unlicensed Medical Practice"

The photo is not related to the specific content of the article. Photo by Pixabay [Image source=Pixabay]

[Asia Economy Reporter Hwang Sumi] A beautician who was prosecuted for performing eyebrow tattooing at her beauty academy was acquitted. The court ruled that semi-permanent makeup procedures for cosmetic purposes cannot be considered unlicensed medical practices.

On the 6th, the Cheongju District Court Criminal Division 5 (Judge Park Jongwon) announced that it had acquitted A, a beautician in her 40s accused of violating the Medical Service Act. A, who operated a beauty academy in Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju, performed semi-permanent makeup procedures for over five years starting in June 2014 and was prosecuted for violating the Medical Service Act.

Semi-permanent makeup involves using needles to apply pigment to areas such as eyebrows or lips, allowing for a defined eye shape and lively lips without additional makeup. Eyebrow tattooing, which involves piercing the eyebrow skin layer with a needle to inject dye and design the desired eyebrow shape, is one of the most representative forms of semi-permanent makeup.

However, such tattoo procedures performed by non-medical personnel are considered illegal in South Korea. Under current law, tattooing is classified as a medical act, and Article 27 of the Medical Service Act stipulates that no one other than a medical professional may perform medical acts for public health. In other words, non-doctors performing tattoo procedures can be punished for violating the Medical Service Act.

There are calls to allow tattoo procedures by non-medical personnel. Considering the actual risks and expertise involved in tattooing, it is argued that it is difficult to say only doctors can perform these procedures.

Additionally, tattooing is one of the high value-added industries, and since most tattoo procedures are performed by non-medical personnel, there is a significant gap between current law and reality. In this context, bills related to the legalization of tattoo procedures have been continuously proposed but remain stalled without passing the National Assembly standing committee.

There is also opposition from the medical community against semi-permanent makeup by non-medical personnel, citing risks such as infection and side effects from injecting pigment into the skin with needles. They argue that such procedures should not be viewed solely as part of the economic sectors like clothing or beauty, nor should they be included in the industry.

However, the court concluded on the 6th that semi-permanent makeup procedures by non-medical personnel are not illegal acts. It judged that semi-permanent makeup performed by individuals without a medical license is not a difficult procedure that poses health and hygiene risks. The court explained, "The procedure involves repeatedly piercing the skin with a needle dipped in pigment to a degree that does not cause pain, and it is difficult to consider it a medical act requiring advanced medical knowledge and skills." It added, "Just as ear piercing for earrings has become commonplace, this procedure also seems possible with limited medical knowledge and skills," and noted, "Side effects caused by dyes should be addressed in the production and distribution process of those substances."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.