When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the representative B.

No one shall indicate or advertise that the name, manufacturing method, quality, nutrition labelling, genetic materials, associations, foods, etc. and food history tracking and management labeling of foods, etc. with the efficacy or effect in preventing and treating diseases, or that such indication or advertisement is likely to mislead or confuse such foods, etc. as medicine or health functional foods.

Nevertheless, the Defendant sold products, such as “scam, name, and shoulder,” at the website, such as the date influence, 11, Gmarket, etc., and would prevent and improve the efficacy and change of the name in the product description.

/ The advertisement was made in a false and exaggerated manner by inserting an advertisement phrase “as far as it has no effect on efficiencies such as efficiencies- chronic disguised infections, nephrosiss, high blood pressure, efficiencies, effici

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on internal investigation (Internet B site search, questioning and replies to the safety of food and drug products, cooperation and replies with both viewing investigation data and replies);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Article 94 (1) 2-2 of the Food Sanitation Act, and Article 13 (1) 1 of the same Act concerning selective punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the criminal facts of the instant case and reflects his mistake; (b) the actual sold goods are deemed to be nonexistent; and (c) the current situation appears to be in suspension of business; and (d) the fact that there was no past record of criminal punishment after around 2006, etc. are recognized as favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case where the defendant makes an exaggerated advertisement with the content and method of the crime, legislative intent of the Food Sanitation Act, etc., which is likely to mislead the defendant to be effective in treating and preventing diseases against food, is not less than that of the crime, and the general punishment of the same and similar cases is balanced.