Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

1. No one shall indicate or advertise that the name, manufacturing method, quality, nutrition labelling, etc. of foods, etc. is effective or effective in the prevention and treatment of diseases, or that such foods, etc. are likely to be mistaken for or confused as medicine or health functional foods;

Nevertheless, from March 2013 to December 27, 2013, the Defendant explained “E” products, which are foods sold by the Defendant, on the Internet homepage (D) of the company operated by the Defendant, to “F”, and indicated “F” products as “all chronic diseases, in particular, creating a good-quality and self-refluence for the imprising disease” and advertised that they are likely to mislead or confuse them as pharmaceutical products or health functional foods.

2. Defendant B, the representative of Defendant B’s agricultural partnership Defendant corporation, committed a violation of the Food Sanitation Act regarding the Defendant’s business in the same manner as stated in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. G statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, a closure screen and investigation report (Attachment to a certified transcript of a corporate register);

1. Article 97 Subparag. 1 and Article 13(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 11986, Jul. 30, 2013); Articles 100, 97 Subparag. 1, and 13(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 11986, Jul. 30, 2013); Defendant B agricultural partnership: Articles 100, 97 Subparag. 1 and 13(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 11986, Jul. 30, 2013);

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;