Supreme Court: "Non-Medical Tattooing Is Not Unlicensed Medical Practice"... First Precedent Change in 34 Years

"Regulated Under the Criminal Act and Public Health Control Act"

Yonhap News Agency

The Supreme Court has ruled that tattooing performed by non-medical professionals cannot be regarded as unlicensed medical practice. This overturns a precedent set 34 years ago, which had made tattooing by non-medical professionals subject to criminal penalties.

On May 21, the Supreme Court's Grand Bench overturned the lower court rulings that had imposed fines on individuals surnamed Park and Baek, who were each indicted on charges of violating the Medical Service Act, and remanded the cases with a decision of not guilty. Park, who operated a beauty salon, was tried for performing scalp tattoos from January to December 2020, while Baek was prosecuted for performing lettering tattoos at a fashion accessories store in May 2019. In both cases, the lower courts had imposed fines based on the previous Supreme Court precedent.

However, the Supreme Court ruled, "Ordinary artistic tattooing performed by non-medical professionals does not constitute unlicensed medical practice as prohibited by Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the former Medical Service Act." The Court explained, "Tattooing was widely practiced before the emergence of professional medical practitioners and developed as an independent occupation distinct from medical practice. Most tattoo procedures are not directly related to disease prevention or treatment, and successful procedures do not necessarily require the level of medical expertise possessed by healthcare professionals."

The Supreme Court further noted, "The use of safer tattoo machines and hygiene products has become common, and public health risks can be sufficiently managed through the Criminal Act and the Public Health Control Act, among others."

In particular, the Court emphasized the protection of fundamental constitutional rights. It stated, "Requiring the general public to obtain medical qualifications in order to perform tattoo procedures is in effect equivalent to prohibiting non-medical professionals from engaging in tattooing," and added, "This essentially blocks the freedom to choose tattooing as an occupation." The Court also pointed out that restricting tattooing exclusively to medical professionals is out of touch with reality, emphasizing that "this may infringe on the general personality rights, the pursuit of happiness, and the freedom of expression and art of those receiving tattoos."

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has changed its position for the first time in 34 years since its May 1992 decision, which had classified eyebrow tattooing as unlicensed medical practice. As a result of this decision, ordinary tattooing will no longer be subject to punishment as unlicensed medical practice. In addition, the 'Tattooist Act', which allows non-medical professionals to perform tattoo procedures, was passed by the National Assembly in September last year and will take effect at the end of October next year. The law stipulates that 'tattooists' who have passed the national examination and obtained a license are permitted to perform tattoo procedures.

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