식품위생법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
A. As can be seen, the above statutory provision should be interpreted to limit only labeling and advertising that directly and mainly aims at treating, preventing, etc. a specific disease and that leads consumers to confuse with medicine by labeling and advertising that are intended for the treatment, prevention, etc. of a specific disease. Whether a certain labeling or advertising exceeds the limit as food advertising and causes consumers to confuse with medicine should be specifically determined by the legal application institution based on the average perception of the general public.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7415 Decided August 11, 2008, etc.). B.
The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. ① The part of the facts charged in this case is the part explaining the efficacy of each of the main ingredients of the G products in this case. The upper part clearly shows the source of this case by stating the "the effect of each of the main ingredients in this part of this case" at the bottom of this part, and "the effect of each of the main material in this part of this case" at the bottom of this part. ② The actual efficacy of this part of this case is stated as above. ② The main material in this part of this part of this case is the substance of the product in this case. ③ The main material in this part of this part of this case is not a medicine even if it is viewed as a general person of society, ④ the defendant separately sold the product in this case on the Internet shopping agency site, or it is reasonable to directly explain that the product in this case was operated on the website or the product in this case's publicity and prevention.