Supreme Court Confirms Suspended Sentence for Illegal Massage Practices

The Supreme Court of South Korea has ruled that it is illegal for non-medical massage therapists to operate treatment centers and perform physical manipulation for pain relief. This decision emphasizes that non-medical practitioners should not engage in medical acts aimed at treating diseases. On June 1, the Supreme Court's second division, led by Justice Oh Kyung-mi, upheld a lower court's ruling that sentenced an individual, referred to as A, to one year in prison, suspended for two years, along with a fine of 1 million won for violating medical laws.

In October 2022, A was charged for consulting clients about their pain and performing physical manipulations on areas such as the neck, shoulders, back, arms, and knees at a treatment center he operated, for which he charged 150,000 won. According to medical law, only licensed practitioners, such as bone setters, are legally permitted to perform such treatments. A claimed that he had obtained qualifications as a bone setter and massage therapist from a private institution in 2021, arguing that his actions were legal.

The first trial concluded that A's actions constituted unlicensed medical practice, resulting in the aforementioned sentence. The court noted that the National Medical Act, which previously granted medical qualifications to bone setters, was abolished in 1962. Therefore, A's qualifications obtained from a private entity did not confer legal medical practitioner status.

A appealed, asserting that his actions were merely massage and posed minimal health risks, thus qualifying as justifiable conduct. However, the appellate court rejected this claim, stating that A had diagnosed a client with shoulder pain and performed physical manipulations that exceeded the scope of simple massage, categorizing them as medical acts aimed at treating illness. The court also noted that A's actions were profit-driven, which further disqualified them from being considered justifiable.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating there was no misunderstanding regarding the definition of 'medical acts' under medical law.