A. In determining facts or misapprehending legal principles, the Defendant did not know whether prior deliberation should be conducted in accordance with the deliberation standards, methods, and procedures set by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety when he/she intends to place functional labels or advertisements on

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) by the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that his act of misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple case of the site of law. Generally, it is a general case of crime, but it is erroneous that his act does not constitute a crime that is permitted by the law in his own special circumstances, and if there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do62 Decided May 27, 2005). Even if the Defendant intended to place functional labels and advertisements on functional health foods, the Defendant’s act constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason to believe that his act does not go against the law and regulations, and thus, constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason to believe that the act does not go against the law and regulations.

It can not be said that there was no criminal intent against the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant’s immediate deletion of the advertisement is favorable to the Defendant, knowing that the instant advertisement violated the Health Functional Foods Act.

However, it is possible for the defendant to make false or exaggerated advertisements or mistake or confuse general food as medicine or health functional food in the mail order of the previously subsidized food.