건강기능식품에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment of KRW 500,00,000 is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in a mail order business with the trade name of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B and “C” from the first and second floors.
A person who intends to indicate or advertise the functionality of health functional foods shall undergo deliberation in accordance with the criteria, methods and procedures for deliberation on labels or advertisements of health functional foods determined by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety.
In addition, it shall not be indicated or advertised the contents of which are not deliberated or which are different from those deliberated.
Nevertheless, on September 10, 2017, the Defendant posted the advertisements which were not deliberated upon by E in selling ‘stopex' through the Internet site (D) around September 10, 2017.
B. As to the above facts charged, the prosecutor applied Articles 44 subparag. 4 and 18(1)6 of the former Health Functional Foods Act (amended by Act No. 15480, Mar. 13, 2018) to a summary order, and the court of the original trial that was conducted upon the Defendant’s request for formal trial, recognized the facts charged as guilty and sentenced a fine of KRW 50,000 to the Defendant.
This Court made a decision to request adjudication on the constitutionality of the above applicable provisions of law.
The Constitutional Court (2019Hun-Ga4) was amended by Act No. 1269, May 30, 2019; Article 18 (1) 6 of the former Health Functional Foods Act (amended by Act No. 11508, Oct. 22, 2012; Act No. 15480, Mar. 13, 2018); and Article 18 (1) 6 of the former Health Functional Foods Act (amended by Act No. 1269, May 21, 2014; Act No. 15480, Mar. 13, 2018); and Article 18 (1) 6 of the former Health Functional Foods Act (amended by Act No. 15480, Mar. 16, 2018);