A person who was not a physician or other medical professional performed an eyebrow tattoo procedure and was put on trial, but was acquitted with finality by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court en banc last month changed precedent for the first time in 34 years, saying that tattoo procedures by nonmedical practitioners are not illegal. This is the first finalized acquittal to follow.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Noh Kyung-pil) on the 11th affirmed a lower court ruling acquitting hairdresser Choi So-yoon, 41, who had been brought to trial on charges of violating the Act on the Control of Health Crimes (unlicensed medical practitioner).
Choi was indicted on charges of performing semi-permanent makeup (tattoo procedures), including eyebrows and hairlines, by pricking with a needle to implant pigment 14 times at a beauty shop in Cheongju, North Chungcheong Province, from March to June 2019, and receiving 2.19 million won.
Previously, in 1992, the Supreme Court found that eyebrow tattoos were a medical act, making tattoo procedures by nonmedical practitioners subject to punishment. Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act provides that no one other than a medical professional may perform medical acts. Article 5 of the Act on the Control of Health Crimes provides that a person who, for profit, engages in medical acts as an occupation in violation of Article 27 of the Medical Service Act shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or a term of at least two years.
The first trial acquitted Choi. The first-trial panel said, "An eyebrow tattoo procedure is carried out by simple, repetitive techniques of pricking the skin with a pigment-coated needle to a degree that does not draw blood, so it is hard to see that advanced medical knowledge and skills are needed to prevent danger," ruling that it does not constitute a medical act as defined by the Act on the Control of Health Crimes.
The appeals court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal. The appellate panel said, "For semi-permanent makeup procedures, skills that allow for creative or aesthetically pleasing expression are also required, and these are not necessarily possessed by medical professionals," adding, "From the recipient's standpoint, receiving a procedure from a nonmedical practitioner can actually be seen as receiving a more specialized procedure."
The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor's final appeal. The Supreme Court en banc on the 21st of last month changed precedent for the first time in 34 years, holding that ordinary cosmetic tattooing by nonmedical practitioners does not constitute unlicensed medical practice under the Medical Service Act. The Supreme Court's finalized ruling that day followed this legal principle.