In order to sell food, the Defendant did not indicate or advertise as if he/she had efficacy, efficacy, and effect in the prevention or treatment of disease. However, from around October 2014 to November 20, 2014, the Defendant issued a mail order on “G” products (hereinafter referred to as “instant food”) made by adding safy and hub extractions to the growth room to the growth room (hereinafter referred to as “the instant food”) and inserting them into the Internet site F and put them into effect into effect on the mail order. The Defendant eliminated air condition and stop frithrity. The Defendant removed frithr and stop sathrity.” The Defendant puts labeling and advertisements that are likely to have efficacy in the treatment of disease or cause confusion as medicine.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor prosecuted the facts charged in this case by applying Article 94(1)2-2 and Article 13(1)1 of the Food Sanitation Act. In interpreting the meaning of the above provision, the above provision cannot be deemed as prohibiting all the advertisement of the pharmacological efficacy of food. It is permitted in cases where it is the same as labeling or advertising that it is an effect incidental to food or appearing as a result of nutrition within the intrinsic limitation of the efficacy of food as it is, even if it is labeling or advertising of such contents, it shall be allowed. Accordingly, the above provision of the Act and subordinate statutes should be interpreted as restricting only the advertisement that directly and mainly aims to treat and prevent a specific disease, and it should be interpreted as regulating only the advertisement that causes consumers to confuse with a certain product by labeling or advertising that is for the purpose of treating and preventing a specific disease. Whether certain advertisements or advertisements cause confusion to a medicine beyond the limit as food advertising, based on the average perception of the general public.

Supreme Court Decision 200