All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The Defendants and Defendant A’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) the Defendants’ act of carrying D’s effects on the customer center of “E” is not an advertisement; and (b) the contents thereof cannot be said to be an exaggerated advertisement which might lead to confusion with D as medicine; (c) despite the fact-finding, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “advertisements likely to cause confusion with medicine” under the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 10787, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter the same), thereby finding the Defendants guilty; and (d) the lower judgment is unlawful.

However, food subject to the regulation of the Food Sanitation Act is excluded from medicine from the beginning in accordance with Article 2 (1).

Therefore, even if the general food has the efficacy of treating diseases, unless it is approved as a food by the Food Sanitation Act, and unless it is approved as a medicine, if it is used an expression that is likely to cause confusion with the medicine in labeling or advertising the food, it is likely to cause harm to the consumer's health as a false label or an exaggerated advertisement on the quality of the food beyond the scope as an indication or an advertisement on the food. Thus, it is in violation of the Food Sanitation Act regulating the indication and advertisement of the food from the point of view of preventing sanitary harm caused by the food.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the former Food Sanitation Act.