In the indication and advertisement of fishery products, “biological” is used as a concept that distinguishs from “crow” in terms of expression of fishery products that live without freezing after capture or are distributed in a fresh state to the extent equivalent thereto. Generally, depending on whether the fishery products are living or freezing or freezing, the period of storage or storage methods vary depending on whether they are operated after freezing. Furthermore, a new guidance to purchase fishery products is one of the most important quality evaluation factors, and it is believed that a new guidance to purchase fishery products is more high than ordinary freezing fishery products, and accordingly, the fishery products are traded more in sacking than freezing fishery products.

Therefore, it should be viewed that the labeling or advertising of fishery products in freezing fishery products or fishery products operated after freezing is false on the quality of fishery products.

According to Article 13 (1) 2 of the Food Sanitation Act, no person shall make any indication or advertisement that is different from facts or exaggerated with respect to the name, manufacturing method, quality and nutrition labelling, genetically modified foods, and food traceability labelling.

In the indication and advertisement of fishery products, “biological” is used as a concept that distinguishs from “crow” in terms of expression of fishery products that live without freezing after capture or are distributed in a fresh state to the extent equivalent thereto. Generally, depending on whether the fishery products are living or freezing or freezing, the period of storage or storage methods vary depending on whether they are operated after freezing. Furthermore, a new guidance to purchase fishery products is one of the most important quality evaluation factors, and it is believed that a new guidance to purchase fishery products is more high than ordinary freezing fishery products, and accordingly, the fishery products are traded more in sacking than freezing fishery products.

Therefore, it should be viewed that the labeling or advertising of fishery products in freezing fishery products or fishery products operated after freezing is false on the quality of the fishery products.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant placed an indication or advertisement on the sold goods with the “satisfying biological satch” as “satisfying biological satfry” after leaving the Jeju Freezing.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding prohibition of false labelling, etc. under the Food Sanitation

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)