1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Food Sanitation Act as of April 10, 2013 among the facts charged by the lower court is that the Defendant, who is engaged in the food sales business, advertised lux trees in the Nil Newspaper at the same time and placed an indication or advertisement with the effect of efficacy on the prevention and treatment of diseases, such as urine, serum, and blood pressure, based on the case of consumers’ experience skills.

(1) The lower court: (1) On the premise that the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are under the premise that the indictment was not instituted against the Defendant under Article 97 subparag. 1 and subparag. 13(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 11986, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same) and Article 8(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (an advertisement with the effect of preventing or treating diseases), and the indictment was not instituted against the same Enforcement Rule (an advertisement with an experience machine). (2) On the ground that yellow lives sold by the Defendant merely cut off, without using food additives or other raw materials, which are likely to cause harm to sanitation in the process of processing agricultural products or forestry products, and thus, the sale of forest products is merely an advertisement report, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute an advertisement report under subparag. 2 subparag. 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and thus, it does not constitute an advertisement report under Article 25 subparag. 2(2). 6).