문신시술 행위에 대한 우리나라 헌법재판소 결정(2017헌마1343)의 의미와 일본 최고재판소 결정 후 동향 및 시사점

In September 2020, the Supreme Court decided that tattooing by a tattoo artist was not considered to be a medical practice because it was difficult to recognize that it was an act that belongs to medical care and health guidance in light of social norms. Japan has a similar legal system to Korea and was known as one of the few countries around the world that prohibits tattoos by non-medical personnel. voices were raised. In the case of Korea, there have been several judgments on this issue through the Supreme Court precedent and the Constitutional Court decision. The Constitutional Court has maintained the judgment that the Constitutional Court did not violate the Constitution as regards the claim that the part that did not separately institutionalize qualifications constitutes a legislative omission and that there are problems such as infringement of freedom of occupation. Meanwhile, on March 31, 2022, the Constitutional Court maintained its precedent position in the case of a combined hearing on a request for a judgment on various issues that had been dealt with by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, in this paper, the direction of regulation and legislation according to changes in social perception is suggested by examining the trends after the decision of Japan, where the Supreme Court decision was made before Korea, and examining the meaning of the decision of the Constitutional Court.