The full bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that tattoo procedures performed by non-medical practitioners cannot be punished as violations of the Medical Service Act, overturning a 34-year-old legal precedent that had treated such acts as unlicensed medical practice.
On Thursday, the top court overturned lower court rulings that had found a hairstylist, identified only as A, and others guilty and fined them for violating the Medical Service Act by performing scalp tattoo procedures on customers.
The case was remanded to the lower court with instructions consistent with a not-guilty verdict.
The full bench of the Supreme Court ruled that tattoo procedures performed by non-medical practitioners cannot be punished as violations of the Medical Service Act.
The Supreme Court stated that tattooing, which involves injecting pigment into the skin with needles, has long been recognized as an act with decorative, symbolic, and aesthetic value, and that the field of tattooing has developed as an independent profession distinct from medicine and medical treatment.
“The majority of ordinary cosmetic tattoo procedures are not directly related to the prevention or treatment of disease,” the court said.
The court also noted that tattoo procedures require aesthetic knowledge, technical skill, and experience related to tattooing, but that “considering the common forms of tattooing and the body areas involved, successful procedures do not necessarily require the level of medical expertise and clinical experience expected of licensed medical professionals.”
Although tattooing has “invasive characteristics,” the court said that “ordinary tattoo procedures are generally limited to the skin, and the tools and methods used are relatively standardized,” making it difficult to conclude that the extensive and highly advanced medical expertise required of physicians is indispensable.
The court further stated that continuing to define tattooing as a medical act that can only be performed by licensed medical professionals is increasingly disconnected from changing social realities.
Emphasizing constitutional concerns, the Supreme Court said that allowing only medical professionals to perform cosmetic tattooing while completely prohibiting non-medical practitioners based solely on potential public health risks “could result in an infringement of fundamental constitutional rights.”
The court added that, given the relatively limited number of physicians actually engaged in cosmetic tattoo procedures, interpreting tattooing as a medical practice under the Medical Service Act could “normatively block the public’s ability to express individuality, develop personal identity, and pursue happiness,” potentially leading to “results far removed from reality.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court announced that it was overturning previous rulings, including a 1992 precedent that classified cosmetic tattooing by non-medical practitioners as unlicensed medical practice under the Medical Service Act.
Lee Han-soo
댓글
0