The highest judicial authority has decided that individuals without medical training cannot face penalties for conducting aesthetic tattooing services like eyeliner and forehead line tattoos. This represents the initial instance where the court implemented its updated ruling, set by the Supreme Court as a whole body just last month following 34 years of previous guidelines, stating, "Aesthetic tattoo procedures carried out by those without medical qualifications do not qualify as unauthorized medical activity."
The Third Division of the Supreme Court (presided over by Justice No Kyung-pil) concluded the case of aesthetician A, resulting in an acquittal for alleged violations of the Health Crime Control Act as an unlicensed medical professional on the 11th.
Person A faced charges for conducting semi-permanent eyebrow and hairline tattoos on 14 customers between March and June 2019 at a beauty clinic located in Cheongju, North Chungcheong Province, earning more than two million South Korean won. The prosecutors claimed that tattooing, which includes puncturing the skin using needles to insert color, qualifies as a medical procedure under the Medical Services Act, asserting that A, who lacks medical qualifications, performed unauthorized medical activities.
Nevertheless, both the initial and subsequent trials found A. Not guilty. In the first trial held in 2022, it was determined that the phrase "medical act" within the Medical Services Act should be understood narrowly, referring exclusively to activities connected with illness prevention, identification, therapy, or comparable functions. The court decided that eyebrows and hairline tattooing have no connection to treatment and can be carried out by individuals without medical qualifications provided they receive appropriate instruction and maintain proper sanitation standards, therefore not falling under the category of medical acts. The second trial confirmed the verdict of innocence.
Last month on the 21st, the full bench of the Supreme Court updated its previous ruling, noting, "Although tattooing may sometimes be done by healthcare practitioners, it is usually conducted by individuals without medical training. Standard cosmetic tattoo services provided by those without medical licenses do not qualify as practicing medicine without authorization." This represented the initial modification in legal guidance after 34 years.
After the en banc ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the prosecutor's appeal and concluded with A's innocence. The court remarked, "The lower court's verdict stating that the tattooing process was not considered a medical procedure and therefore led to A's acquittal is justified."
