1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 3(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 11050, Sep. 15, 2011; hereinafter “Indication Advertising Act”) provides that “The business operator, etc. shall not engage in any of the following acts, which are likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and are likely to undermine fair trade order, or cause other business operators to do so:

In addition, the main text of Article 17 of the Act on the Labeling and Advertising provides that "any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 1.5 million won" and subparagraph 1 of Article 3 provides that "any business operator, etc. who commits unfair labeling and advertising in violation of the provisions of Article 3 (1) or makes another business operator do so, or makes another business operator do so." Article 16 (3) provides that "the provisions of Article 71 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to accusation against a crime under Article 17 of this Act" and Article 71 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11937, Jul. 16, 2013; hereinafter "Fair Trade Act") provides that "the crimes of Articles 66 and 67 may be prosecuted only when the Fair Trade Commission files a complaint."

According to the above relevant provisions, the crime under Article 17 of the Act on the Labeling and Advertising is a case where a public prosecution can be instituted only when the Fair Trade Commission files an accusation under Article 71 (1) of the Fair Trade Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 16 (3) of the Act on the

However, even if the record is examined, it is against the defendant.