The judgment below

The part against Defendant A is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Western District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below found Defendant E’s Internet homepage “G (H, 2004)” guilty of the charge of the crime of this case under Article 13(1)1 of the former Food Sanitation Act, by advertising the I products sold by Defendant A, which amounting to KRW 1,733,00,00, including “G (H, 200,” and selling I products using the Internet shopping mall, etc., and thereby having the effect of preventing and treating diseases, such as alzines, natural exemption, destruction of cancer cells, blood pressure control, eye pressure control, and eye and urine damage scope caused by urology, and by applying Article 18(1)13 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 1981, Jul. 13, 200; Act No. 1981, Jan. 19, 200).

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Article 13(1) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that "no person shall use any false, exaggerated, or secret labelling or advertisement falling under any of the following subparagraphs with respect to the name, manufacturing method, quality, and nutrition labelling of foods, etc., genetically modified foods, etc., and the indication of food traceability, and no exaggerated packaging shall be made for packages. The same shall also apply to nutritional values, raw materials, ingredients, and uses of foods or food additives." In addition, Article 13(1)1 of the same Act provides that "an indication or advertisement that is likely to have efficacy or effect in the prevention and treatment of diseases, or to mislead or confuse them as medicine or health functional foods."

However, the above provision is interpreted in interpreting the meaning of the above provision.