Eyebrow tattooing draws contradictory court verdicts

"Do you go to medical school to become a doctor, or to learn how to tattoo?"

This was the rallying cry written on the signs held by tattoo artists advocating for the decriminalization of tattooing in front of the Daegu District Court on May 9.

This slogan encapsulates their argument that the skills required for tattooing are distinct from those of medical professionals, and thus should not be regulated as medical acts.

Many middle-aged men and women who experience noticeable thinning of their eyebrows often get eyebrow tattoos, but none of them receive these tattoos from a doctor.

In reality, most eyebrow tattoo procedures are performed by tattoo artists. Nevertheless, according to a Supreme Court precedent that classifies tattooing as a medical practice, it is illegal for anyone other than a doctor to perform tattoos, whether on one's eyebrows or elsewhere on the body.

The controversy over whether tattooing constitutes a medical act, which means a significant portion of the population have undergone "unlicensed medical procedures," has resurfaced.

This renewed debate follows recent lower court rulings that have delivered completely opposite verdicts regarding the legality of tattoo artists' procedures. The Supreme Court's full bench, consisting of the chief justice and 13 other justices, is currently reviewing the matter to resolve this confusion.

Contradictory court decisions baffle public

On May 14, the Daegu District Court handed down a suspended sentence and 1 million won fine to an individual identified only as A, 24, for performing tattoo procedures without a medical license.

In this jury trial, four out of seven jurors found A guilty, and the court respected the jury's verdict by imposing a suspended prison sentence.

In defense, A argued, "Tattooing is distinct from actual medical practices such as disease treatment," and said, "Since people do not go to hospitals to get tattoos, it should be regulated as an independent legal matter rather than as a medical practice."

On the other hand, the prosecution argued, "The Public Health Control Act views tattooing as a medical act, and other tattoo artists have been punished accordingly."

However, there have been acquittals in previous court rulings.

In December last year, the Busan District Court's Eastern Branch acquitted B, who was charged with performing eyebrow tattoos for 60,000 to 100,000 won per session between November 2021 and May last year.

The court reasoned, "Considering tattoo procedures by nonmedical professionals as illegal is out of touch with reality," and "Eyebrow tattoos are for cosmetic purposes, and criminalizing them could drive the practice underground."

Similarly, in August of the same year, the Cheongju District Court acquitted C, who performed eyebrow tattoos, stating, "It is hard to see how tattoos performed by nonmedical professionals pose a threat to public health."

Supreme Court won't ignore lower courts' decisions

The recent guilty verdict from the Daegu District Court may reflect the nature of the jury trial. Lawyer Choi Yong-moon of Law Firm Yeyul explained, "Although there are exceptions, typically in jury trials, the court interprets the law in line with the jury's judgment," adding, "There is a significant possibility that a higher court may reach a different conclusion."

Another criminal defense attorney also said, "Given the nature of jury trials, the court likely referenced the opinions of the jurors."

With lower court decisions fluctuating, the controversy is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that tattooing was an unlicensed medical practice, and this precedent remains valid.

However, a variable in this situation is that the Supreme Court is currently conducting a full bench review of a "scalp tattoo" case. The full bench session is convened when a case is not suitable for a smaller panel or when there is a need to overturn an existing precedent.

This implies that the Supreme Court might consider changing its stance and not classifying tattooing as a medical act.

If the review results in a verdict of innocence, it could significantly impact ongoing lower court cases against tattoo artists, potentially leading to acquittals.

Choi said, "While we cannot predict the outcome, if lower courts continue to deliver rulings that diverge from the established legal principles, the Supreme Court will not be able to ignore this trend."

Doctors, the only legally authorized practitioners of tattooing, remain opposed to nonmedical professionals performing tattoo procedures.

The Korean Dermatological Association and the Korean Association of Dermatologists issued a statement on May 16, strongly opposing the allowance of tattoos by unqualified individuals, including semi-permanent makeup.

They emphasized the need for safety management, noting that carcinogenic substances have been detected in dyes used for tattoos.

It is estimated that there are about 350,000 tattoo industry workers and 13 million people in Korea who have experienced getting a tattoo.

In 2015, the Ministry of Employment and Labor even introduced tattooing as a "promising future occupation."

The Ministry of Health and Welfare commissioned a study in March this year to develop a qualification exam and continuing education system for tattoo artists, with plans to use the results for future policy development.

Tattoo artist organizations are hopeful for an acquittal from the Supreme Court and are prioritizing the passage of related legislation in the next National Assembly.

Lee Soon-jae, an education committee member of the Korea Tattoo Association, said, "Tattooing should be done by tattoo artists," and emphasized their commitment to ensuring that the first bill passed by the 22nd National Assembly protects the rights of tattoo artists.

This article from the Hankook Ilbo, sister publication of The Korea Times, was translated by generative AI and edited by staff of The Korea Times.