The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely provided that the Defendant would assist in the prevention of high blood pressure, stroke, stroke, beer, stroke, stroke, etc. when taking nicotine, and there is no fact that J (hereinafter “instant health functional food”) expressed that it directly and mainly aims to treat and prevent the said disease.

Therefore, from the perspective of the general public, the health functional food of this case is unlikely to be confused or mistaken as medicine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether there exists a misapprehension of the legal principle or not, 1) The Health Functional Foods Act (hereinafter “Health Functional Foods Act”).

) In interpreting the meaning of Articles 3 subparag. 1 and 18(1) and (2) of the Health Functional Foods Act, Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the Health Functional Foods Act, it shall not be deemed that Article 18(1) of the same Act prohibits all labeling and advertising of the pharmacological efficacy of health functional foods. Even if labeling and advertising of such contents are the same as labeling and advertising of the effects that are incidental to health functional foods or appear as a result of nutrition within the intrinsic limitation of the efficacy of health functional foods, it shall be deemed permitted. Thus, the above statutory provision should be interpreted to limit only the labeling and advertising of the functional health foods for the direct and main purpose of preventing and treating specific diseases, and to limit only the labeling and advertising of the functional health foods for the purpose of leading consumers to mistake and confuse them as medicine. Whether certain labeling and advertising are likely to go beyond the limit of health functional foods advertising and to mislead or confuse them as efficacy and effect in preventing and treating diseases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do4234, Apr. 24, 20103).