1. Case Overview

Court: Seoul Southern District Court, Criminal Division 3-1

Decision Date: 27 November 2025

Case No.: 2025No1332

Charge: Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (unlicensed medical practice)

Defendant: Ms. Lee, a tattooist in her 30s

Lower Court (1st instance): Guilty — 1 year imprisonment, suspended for 2 years + 700,000 KRW fine

Appeal judgment: Reversed — Not Guilty


This decision came two months after the National Assembly passed the Tattooist Act, which explicitly permits tattooing by non-medical practitioners.


—

2. Facts of the Case

In August–September 2023, the defendant operated a tattoo shop in Gangnam, Seoul.

She performed lettering tattoos for four clients, earning 890,000 KRW in total.

Prosecution argued that tattooing involves invasive procedures and thus constitutes a medical act requiring a medical license.

The first-instance court agreed and convicted her.

She appealed.



—

3. Issues

Is tattooing (especially aesthetic, lettering-style tattooing) a “medical act” that can only be performed by licensed medical professionals?


—

4. Judgment

The appellate court held:

**➡️ Tattooing, as practiced here, is not a medical act.

➡️ Therefore, a non-medical practitioner performing tattoos does not constitute unlicensed medical practice.**

The court reversed the conviction and entered a not-guilty verdict.


—

5. Court’s Legal Reasoning

(1) Medical acts must not be defined too broadly

The court emphasized that the concept of “medical practice” cannot be expanded simply because some degree of hygienic risk exists.

Even invasive procedures vary in risk, and some are sufficiently safe when performed by trained non-medical technicians.


(2) Tattooing serves artistic and aesthetic purposes

Tattoo procedures are not performed to treat illness or enhance health, unlike typical medical acts.

They aim to express identity, aesthetics, and creativity.

Artistic skill, design sense, and aesthetic judgment play a central role — qualities not unique to medical professionals.


(3) From the perspective of customers

Clients often prefer tattooists with artistic creativity, not medical professionals lacking artistic training.

Therefore, limiting tattooing to medical professionals ignores the reality of consumer expectations and the nature of the service.


(4) Legislative intent and social change

Parliament recently enacted the Tattooist Act, acknowledging:

Widespread tattooing practices by non-medical artists

Changing social awareness regarding tattoos

The inconsistency of criminalizing non-medical tattooists without a clear legal basis


The court interpreted this as strong evidence that tattooing should no longer be treated as a medical act.



—

6. Holding

> “Although the defendant is not a medical professional and performed tattooing for profit, tattooing can no longer be regarded as a medical practice. Therefore, the defendant is not guilty.”




—

7. Significance

This is one of the first appellate decisions following the enactment of the Tattooist Act.

It confirms a major shift in Korean judicial interpretation, recognizing tattooing as:

An artistic service

Not inherently medical

Lawfully performed by trained non-medical practitioners



This ruling is expected to:

Influence future criminal cases involving tattoo artists

Support the formalization and legalization of the tattoo industry

Reduce legal risk for tattooists operating under the new legal framework

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/213719