According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant 1 was the external judge of the scooren who was manufactured and sold by the defendant 2 with the product approval of food manufacture at the company of the first instance, and the defendant 1 sold the above scooren to the non-indicted 2 on the date and time of the judgment and delivered 40 pages printed with the contents of special effect such as scooren's scooren's cancer, the scooren's disease, the scoo's disease, the scoo's disease, the scoo's disease, the scoo's disease, high blood pressure, and the heart's disease, etc., the above evidence preparation and the fact-finding of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the judgment below.

2. According to Article 11(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, the name, manufacturing method, and quality of food, food, and food are not falsely labeled or advertisedly advertised. According to Article 11(2) of the same Act, the scope of false labelling and exaggerated advertisements is prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides that advertisements through the name, manufacturing method, quality and use of food, etc., radio, television, newspapers, magazines, music, video, and printed materials, which fall under any of the following subparagraphs, shall be included in advertisements with the effect that they can be confused with medicine or medicine. Even if the above authorized person translates the contents of Japanese medical doctor's license as it is, the act of issuing the above authorized person's license constitutes a violation of Article 6 subparag. 3 of the above Enforcement Rule, which provides that the original work constitutes a violation of the law by citing documents on food, nutrition, etc. as stated in the proviso of the above Article 6(1) of the same Enforcement Rule, and thus, the Defendant's name and 1).

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment based on macroscopic evidence, and held that even if Defendant 1 had been engaged in the sales business of the above scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s

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