A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to verify the violation of prohibition of false and exaggerated labeling and the violation of business regulations among the facts charged, the fact that the Defendants sold products can be sufficiently recognized by promoting speculative spirit, such as in collusion with salespersons whose names cannot be known, which are likely to have efficacy and effect in the prevention and treatment of diseases, or to confuse the ingredients of functional health foods with medicine, or providing samples or free gifts.

B. Of the facts charged, even if the company of this case bears the duty to report the non-reported business, the Defendants are an offender who runs a business without filing a business report, and thus, the Defendants should be punished in accordance with both penal provisions.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its holding.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court compared with the evidence examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion

(b) Article 6 (2) of the Health Functional Foods Act, among the facts charged, shall be equipped with the facilities under Article 4 for each place of business and report to the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, the Special Self-Governing Province branch, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the place of business, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister.

Article 44 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that "A person who operates a business without filing a business report pursuant to Article 6 (2)" shall be punished. However, in light of the form and intent of the above provision, the crime of violation of the Health Functional Foods Act due to a violation of duty to report is established.