1. Examining the reasoning of the Defendants’ final appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendants guilty of the facts charged (excluding the part of the Defendant’s acquittal of the Defendant A, and of violation of the Food Sanitation Act) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the negligence of violating the Food Sanitation Act due to the importation of food (Vs) which goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or not in compliance with the standards and specifications, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to conspiracy or functional control

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the Food Sanitation Act due to an advertising act that may mislead Defendant A as to the effect that Defendant A had efficacy in preventing and treating diseases, among the facts charged.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of "advertisement" under Article 13 (1) 1 of the Food Sanitation Act.

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.