The Defendant and C conspired with each other from September 10, 2014 to the 17th day of the same month, the E Publicity Center stated that “A shall gather buyers, manage public relations centers, manage goods, and show performances to buyers, and the Defendant shall have the effect of treating cancer when she takes off her mother for a long time after she has flicked a high quality domestic acid five-lane flives in the F in Chuncheon, in order to view performances, etc., and the Defendant shall have the effect of preventing and treating cancer and having good efficacy to prevent and treat adult diseases, such as urology and high blood pressure.”

As a result, Defendant and C conspired to advertise or confuse the situation mushroom, which is food, with the efficacy and effect of treating and preventing diseases, or as if they were medicine or health functional foods.

2. Determination

A. In interpreting the Food Sanitation Act that prohibits labeling or advertising that may lead to confusion with a drug, such as food or its raw materials, such provision does not entirely prohibit labeling or advertising on the pharmacological efficacy of food, but such labeling or advertising should be permitted if it is the same as labeling or advertising that it is incidental to food or appears as a result of nutrition within the essential limit of the efficacy of food.

Ultimately, the above provision should be interpreted to limit to regulating only the labeling and advertising that directly and mainly aims to treat and prevent a specific disease with regard to food, etc., and that it regulates consumers as medicine. Whether certain labeling and advertising go beyond the limit as food advertising is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding as medicine.