건강기능식품에관한법률위반
The judgment below
Of the above, the part against Defendant B is reversed.
Defendant
B District Court Decision 3,000.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal revealed to the effect that Defendant A made a statement with the investigative agency to the effect that the instant crime was led to the confession, and the statement was specific and credibility.
Defendant
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as partial statements by A and I, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A committed the instant crime in the course of operating B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).
2. Determination
A. The prosecutor added Article 30 of the Criminal Act to the applicable provisions of the Act in the trial of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment and applied for the amendment of the indictment as follows. This court permitted this and the subject of the trial was changed.
Therefore, I examine the prosecutor's argument on the premise that the facts charged were modified as follows.
Defendant
A is an actual operator who operates the functional health foods import and sale business chain B in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2nd floor with I, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of importing and selling functional health foods.
1. No one shall place any false or exaggerated indication or advertisement with regard to the name, raw materials, manufacturing methods, nutrients, ingredients, methods of use, quality, traceability of functional health foods, etc. of functional health foods;
Nevertheless, from August 2016 to February 12, 2018, the Defendant, in collusion with I, posted a notice to the Internet shopping mall, E, F, G, and H that advertising products for the sale of the Health Functional Foods D containing B12, the Defendant made an advertisement that is different from facts or exaggerated from facts to indicate functionality recognized by the Minister of Food and Drug Stabilization.
2. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) from August 2016 to February 12, 2018, the Defendant conspireds with I, who is an employee of the Defendant, and whose representative, with respect to the Defendant’s business, and is different from the facts described in paragraph (1).