<Anchor>



The Constitutional Court judged the same as six years ago that the current law that punishes non-medical people for tattooing is justified.

In the meantime, the tattoo industry has filed several constitutional complaints, claiming that this law infringes on freedom of career choice.

As the social perception of tattooing has changed, there are many opinions that it is necessary to look at it from a new perspective.



By Son Hyeong-an, staff reporter.



<Reporter>



When the Constitutional Court ruled that the medical law that punishes non-medical people who applied tattoos was constitutional, the tattoo industry people gathered in front of the court were weeping and frustrated.



[Lim Bo-ran/Chairman of the Korea Moon Shinsa Association: There is no way to avoid the wretchedness of the judgment.

We will continue to resist this unfair and wrong law.]



Although famous overseas stars have been recognized for their skills to the point of requesting tattoos, Kim Do-yoon, who was sentenced to a fine of 5 million won for illegal procedures in Korea, also expressed the horror.



[Kim Do-yoon/Tattoo Union Branch President: The Constitutional Court did not move even a single step from the level of 1992, which copied Japanese precedents.]



The controversy over tattoo legalization is a 1992 Supreme Court decision that limited the subject of tattooing to medical personnel. It has continued since then.



In 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that it was constitutional in a 7-2 decision.



Today, 6 years later, the opinion that the current medical law is unconstitutional increased by two more to four, but the decision on the constitutionality of the current medical law was the same by a 5 to 4 vote.



A number of judges explained the constitutional reasons that current tattooing procedures do not guarantee medical-level safety.



At the same time, he drew a line that supplementary measures such as the tattoo procedure qualification system are the realm of legislation, not the judgment of the Constitutional Court.



The four judges who opposed it believed that tattooing was no longer an act for therapeutic purposes, and that it was necessary to judge from a new perspective as social perceptions about tattooing changed.



(Video coverage: Seol Min-hwan, video editing: Kim Jun-hee)