2. B;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The end of the vehicle, which the defendants sold, is limited to the "raw materials of functional health foods" as well as the "raw materials of functional health foods," and if so, the supply of such materials to the manufacturing companies of functional health foods by Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Company") who has reported the import business of functional health foods to the manufacturing companies of functional health foods does not require separate reports on the sale business of functional health foods within the scope of the importer's business.

Even if the report on the sale of functional health foods is required, the defendant A did not recognize the need for a separate report on the sale of functional health foods and did not recognize the illegality of the report.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by misunderstanding the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to whether the report on the sale of health functional foods is required, the Defendants made the same assertion in the court below. The court below held that the "motor vehicle electronic cam" imported by the Defendant Company had functioned to assist the improvement of the cryp crypol and the cryp activity during blood, but did not undergo a separate manufacturing or processing as it was in a condition that he did not undergo a separate manufacturing or processing, it can be viewed as "food under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Food Sanitation Act" and "health functional foods" under Article 3 subparagraph 1 and 2 of the Health Functional Foods Act (hereinafter "Health Functional Foods Act"), while it is difficult to regard as "health functional foods" on the other hand, since it constitutes "motor crypam, which was manufactured or processed by using functional ingredients useful to the human body," it constitutes "health functional foods" under the above Act.

The act of importing "motor vehicle electronic fee" cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of business of a person who engages in the business of importing the health functional food under Article 4 (1) 2 of the above Act, and rather, the act of manufacturing the "motor vehicle electronic fee" imported by the defendant L L by requesting the company G to process the "motor vehicle electronic fee," which is a kind of the health functional food, shall be deemed to fall under the scope of business of the "health functional food sales business" under Article 4 (1) 3 of the above Act. Thus, the report on the sale of health functional food under Article 6 (2) of the Health Functional Foods Act should be separately made.

B. As decided by the court below, it is clear that the tea/electronic fee itself does not constitute a functional health food, and the final product made by using the tea/electronic fee as the raw material of the tea/electronic fee so that consumers can immediately take it into the functional health food also constitutes a functional health food, and it is also clear whether the vehicle/electronic fee, the raw material of which is the final product, is viewed as a functional health food from any stage

Before the code of health functional foods publicly notified by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety pursuant to the provisions of the Health Functional Foods Act, the following process is divided into certain quantities or a mixture of additives. Considering the fact that it is difficult to regard the process as an essential process, it is no longer to regard it as a process, it is not only raw material or raw material but also a health functional food itself. If it is not interpreted, the defendant company can durize the e-mail without free regulation such as sanitation under the Health Functional Foods Act. On the contrary, it is possible for the defendant company to not display any indication on the result of the e-mail, and the process remaining after the e-mail is not required to undergo regulation on the result of the e-mail, and it is against the legislative intent of the Health Functional Foods Act to ensure the safety of the e-mail and improve the quality of the e-mail (the e-mail of the e-mail functional Foods Act).

Therefore, as pointed out by the Defendants, it is practically impossible for the Defendant Company to directly purchase it and take it in the state, and even if it comes to the form in which consumers can take it finally after completing the process of adding other raw materials by the manufacturer of functional health foods, it is only the characteristic of the 'raw materials' among functional health foods in comparison with the 'final product', and it cannot be deemed that the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' is not only the raw materials outside the regulatory range of the Health Functional Foods Act, like the '

Therefore, the defendant company's act of crushinging the "motor vehicle electronic fee," making the "motor vehicle electronic fee," and selling it to manufacturers or wholesalers of health functional foods, shall be deemed to fall under the business scope of the "health functional food sales business" under Article 4 (1) 3 of the above Act. Thus, the defendants' allegation of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(2) On the perception of intention and illegality

The defendants asserted the same purport in the court below. The court below held that the defendants' act of misunderstanding that one's act was not a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding. The issue of whether there are justifiable grounds should be determined depending on whether the defendants failed to recognize the illegality of one's act as a result of failing to perform their intellectual ability even though there was a possibility that one's act could be recognized, and the degree of effort necessary for recognizing the illegality should be determined differently in accordance with the detailed situation of the act, the person's individual awareness ability, and the social group to which the actor belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3717, Mar. 24, 2006). In this case, the court below held that the defendants Gap's act of misunderstanding that one's act was not a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and that there is no sufficient reason to see that the defendants' act constitutes an electronic poppy or an electronic sales business under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

Although there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the commission of crime, and the necessary report was completed immediately after the crackdown, considering the size of the sold functional health foods, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Tae-tae

Judges Nam Nam-jin

Although asserting that such a code is nothing more than royalties, it establishes the manufacturing criteria, specifications, and final product requirements with the content of the "sub-electronic clocks"

in this chapter, each of its raw materials and final products shall be divided into two parts, and the raw materials thereof shall be charged to each of the two parts.

In addition to 'nutrition' and 'functionalal ingredients', the above code is separately specified as 'functional health functional foods'.

In light of the fact that there is no provision, regardless of the upper classification name of "functional ingredient", the health functional food itself.

It is reasonable to view it as stipulated.