Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Food Sanitation Act, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The principle of no punishment without law requires that crimes and penalties be determined by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from arbitrary exercise of the state penal authority.

In light of such purport, the interpretation of the penal law must be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of the explicit penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant as it is against the principle of no punishment without law.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013). (B)

Article 97 subparag. 1 of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that a person who violates Article 37(4) of the same Act shall be punished. Articles 37(4) and 36 of the same Act, and Articles 25(1)5 and 21 subparag. 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provide that a person who intends to conduct business of repackaging and selling foods or food additives by dividing the finished products of foods or food additives prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister for the purpose of distribution shall report to the Minister of Food and Drug Safety or the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu. According to Article 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person subject to reporting of the food subdivision business under Article 21 subparag. 5(a) of the same Act refers to cases where a person directly subdivides or packages foods or food additives business subject to food additives manufacturing business, and food additives manufacturing business under Article 21 subparag.