Although no one may indicate or advertise that there is efficacy or effect in the prevention and treatment of diseases, or that there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as medicine or health functional food, the defendant, on February 2, 2013, introduced G (72 years of age, female) (hereinafter “F), which found the place at the place of business of the above “F,” three boxes of “New Processed Product” (Newol / 180g/2gX90E/mors), and one box of “Silk Q (Siled Q/50g/2gX25E/mar)” as if it were sold 1,60,000 won, and introduced 1,660,000 won as if it were “10,000 won, if you drink it, it was the total of 160,000 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won and 16,000 won and 10,000 won and 16,00.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, indicated and advertised that the effect of G et al. al. believed to be effective and effective in the prevention and treatment of diseases, or that there is possibility of misconception and confusion as medicine or health functional food.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the contents of Articles 97 subparag. 1 and 13(1) and (2) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 10787, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter “Act”) and Article 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 73, Aug. 19, 2011); “advertisements likely to cause confusion with medicine for food” prohibited under Article 13(1) of the Act means radio, television, newspapers, magazines, music images, printed materials, signboards, the Internet, and other advertisements.