Court vacates suspended 1 million won fine, remands case to Seoul Northern District Court

Ruling follows last month's en banc precedent change

34-year-old 1992 precedent equating tattoos with medical procedures reversed

Kim Do-yoon, head of the Tattoo Union chapter [Herald DB]
Kim Do-yoon, head of the Tattoo Union chapter [Herald DB]

Tattooist Kim Do-yoon, head of the Tattoo Union chapter, who was convicted on appeal of performing tattoos without a medical license, has been cleared in principle by the Supreme Court. The en banc ruling that non-medical practitioners cannot be punished under the Medical Service Act for performing tattoos was applied to his case as well.

The Supreme Court's Second Division on Thursday overturned the lower court's ruling — which had suspended a 1 million won ($647) fine against Kim — and remanded the case to the Seoul Northern District Court. Justice Oh Gyeong-mi presided as the lead judge.

Kim was indicted after performing a tattoo on a celebrity at his studio in Jongno-gu, Seoul, in December 2019. He was charged with violating the Medical Service Act on the grounds that a non-medical practitioner had performed the procedure.

The first trial sentenced Kim to a 5 million won fine. The second trial upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the penalty to a suspended 1 million won fine — a disposition that acknowledges the offense while deferring sentencing for a set period when mitigating circumstances are recognized.

The Supreme Court, however, reached a different conclusion. Last month, the court's en banc panel changed existing precedent, ruling that tattooing by non-medical practitioners cannot be treated as unlicensed medical practice.

In that ruling, involving cases of lettering and scalp tattoos performed by tattooists, the en banc panel held that non-medical practitioners could not be punished under the Medical Service Act for performing tattoos. The decision reversed a precedent that had stood since 1992 — the view that tattooing constitutes a medical act — after 34 years.

The Supreme Court defined medical acts as "actions that involve diagnosis, prescription and similar procedures to prevent or treat disease, or actions that require administration and management based on medical expertise because there is a risk of harm to public health and sanitation if not performed by a licensed medical professional," and ruled that "tattooing is not a medical act."

Kim's case will now be reconsidered in light of that ruling. With the premise underlying the appeals court's guilty verdict shaken by the Supreme Court's precedent change, an acquittal on remand appears increasingly likely.

The ruling is also expected to shape discussions on formalizing the tattoo industry. Separate from the question of criminal liability, how to establish safeguards — covering hygiene standards, qualification requirements and the regulation of tattoo premises — remains a legislative challenge going forward.


kwater@heraldcorp.com