(a) As to the name, manufacturing method, quality nutrition labelling, genetically modified foods, etc., and the indication of tracking and control of food history, no person who is a defendant A shall place an indication or advertisement that has efficacy or efficacy in preventing and treating diseases or that is likely to cause confusion as medicine or health functional foods;

Nevertheless, from May 2013 to October 31, 2016, the Defendant placed an advertisement on the Internet homepage (E) of the company B located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the effect and effect of food of F sold by the said company, stating “the strengthening of concentration, recovery from skin and energy generation, facilitation of the brain cycle, and reduction of stress” (hereinafter “the instant advertisement”) on the part of the efficacy and effect of food of F sold by the said company, thereby making an advertisement that is likely to have efficacy and efficacy for the prevention and treatment of diseases or to confuse it with medicine or health functional foods.

B. Defendant B, at the time and place specified in the above paragraph A., Defendant A, an employee of the Defendant, committed the above violation in relation to the Defendant’s business.

2 Judgment

A. Article 13(1)1 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that no one shall place an indication or advertisement that has efficacy in preventing and treating diseases with regard to the name, manufacturing method, quality, nutrition labelling, etc. of food, etc. or that is likely to cause confusion as to pharmaceutical products or health functional foods.

In doing so, in interpreting the meaning of the above provision, the above provision prohibits all labeling advertisements as to the pharmacological efficacy of food.

It can not be seen, and even if it is an indication advertisement, it is an effect incidental to food or showing the result of nutrition within the essential limit of efficacy as a food.