[Exclusive] Conflicting Court Rulings Ahead of Tattooist Act Enforcement... Supreme Court Reviews 'Eyebrow Tattoo Acquittal' Case

Conflicting Rulings on Procedures by Non-Medical Professionals

Uncertainty Over Retroactive Application to Past Acts

Supreme Court Decision on Eyebrow Tattooing in the Spotlight

A case in which a non-medical professional was acquitted on the grounds that semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing cannot be definitively considered a medical practice will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. As the 'Tattooist Act', which legalizes tattoo procedures by non-medical professionals, is set to take effect next year, attention is focused on whether the Supreme Court will overturn its precedent of more than 30 years, given the conflicting rulings by lower courts.

Reference image of eyebrow tattoo. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on May 14, the Supreme Court assigned the case of Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Health Crimes (illegal medical practice), to the First Petty Bench this February. Supreme Court Justice Seo Kyunghwan is presiding over the case, and the bench is currently reviewing the legal grounds for the appeal.

Mr. A, who is not a licensed medical professional, was charged with violating the Health Crimes Control Act after performing semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing, which involves injecting pigment into the skin with a needle. The 5-3 Criminal Division of the Uijeongbu District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Eunmyung), which handled the appellate trial last December, dismissed the prosecutor's appeal and upheld the not-guilty verdict from the first trial. The appellate court ruled that semi-permanent makeup procedures are distinct from traditional tattoos and that advances in modern technology now allow for sufficient infection control.

In particular, the court cited the upcoming implementation of the 'Tattooist Act' in October next year as a major reason for the acquittal. The appellate court stated, "Due to legislative action, it has now been socially confirmed that ensuring the safety of tattoo procedures does not require the extensive medical knowledge typically demanded for general medical practices."

Since a 1992 precedent, the Supreme Court has maintained the position that "tattoo procedures constitute medical practice." Consequently, investigative agencies and the courts have punished non-medical professionals performing tattoos under the Medical Service Act or the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Health Crimes.

After the passage of the Tattooist Act, lower courts have issued conflicting rulings regarding tattoo procedures by non-medical professionals. While some courts have delivered not-guilty verdicts, the Seoul Northern District Court found Kim Doyoon, head of the Tattoo Union, guilty last December for performing tattoo procedures without a medical qualification.

Analysts note that this confusion is partly due to the absence of retroactive application provisions for past acts in the newly enacted Tattooist Act. Noh Sinjeong, an attorney at DaeryukAju Law Firm who represents Mr. A, explained, "Although the Tattooist Act has been passed, the lack of retroactive provisions in supplementary rules means that trial courts are delivering inconsistent verdicts depending on the case."

It is reported that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing several similar cases where lower court decisions have been divided following the law's passage. The legal community and the tattoo industry are watching closely to see whether the Supreme Court will maintain its previous precedents for cases that occurred before the law takes effect or redefine the scope of medical practice in line with the legislative intent of the Tattooist Act.

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