D&A LLC successfully secured an acquittal in a criminal case involving a non-medical practitioner who performed semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing.

This case involved a non-medical practitioner (the “Client”) who was indicted on charges of unauthorized medical practice under the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes for allegedly performing semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing.

The prosecution argued that tattooing constitutes a medical practice because it involves injecting pigment into the skin using needles and may pose risks to public health and hygiene, citing prior Supreme Court precedent classifying tattooing as a medical act. Based on this reasoning, the prosecution asserted that semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing performed by non-medical practitioners likewise constituted an unauthorized medical practice.

In response, D&A LLC argued that semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing differs significantly from traditional tattooing in both nature and method. The firm emphasized that, in light of advances in modern procedural techniques and hygiene management systems, such procedures do not require the level of specialized medical knowledge typically associated with medical practice. The firm further argued that, in light of the legislative intent behind the “Tattooist Act,” scheduled to take effect in October 2027, tattoo procedures should not automatically be classified as medical acts, and that any alleged risks to public health and hygiene must be specifically proven.

The appellate court largely accepted these arguments and held that there was insufficient evidence to establish concrete public health or hygiene risks arising from semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing. The court further found that such procedures could not automatically be classified as medical acts and therefore acquitted the defendant. 

This case is significant because it marked a reexamination of whether semi-permanent eyebrow tattooing constitutes a medical practice, despite the Supreme Court’s long-standing position, established in a 1992 precedent, that tattooing is a medical act and the continued punishment of non-medical tattoo practitioners based on that precedent. Subsequently, on May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court en banc overturned its prior precedent treating tattooing as a medical act for the first time in 34 years and remanded the case for acquittal.

The appellate court’s aquitttal in this case may therefore be regarded as a decision that preemptively responded to this evolving judicial trend and, to some extent, contributed to the Supreme Court’s eventual shift in legal doctrine.

Related Article: Courts Divided Ahead of Tattooist Act Enforcement as Supreme Court Takes Up ‘Eyebrow Tattooing Acquittal’ Case