1. On June 2, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of suspending the manufacture of the Category of Products against the Plaintiff is revoked for two months.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a manufacturer of functional health foods, etc.

B. On June 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending manufacturing items for two months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 16(1) and 18(1)6, etc. of the former Health Functional Foods Act (amended by Act No. 11508, Oct. 22, 2012; hereinafter “former Health Functional Foods Act”) on the containers and packages of red ginseng products manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff, on the ground that “The Plaintiff indicated functionality, such as Red ginseng’s functional content, other than the Red Ginseng’s functional content publicly notified in the “Standards and Specifications for Health Functional Foods” (hereinafter “instant provision”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is subject to prior deliberation that constitutes a prior censorship prohibited by the Constitution. Since this provision is highly likely to be unconstitutional, the instant disposition based on this provision is unlawful.

Even if the provision of this case is not unconstitutional, the content indicated by the Plaintiff on the containers and packages of red ginseng products is not related to the functionality of the products, but merely explains the raw materials of the products, and thus, it is not subject to prior deliberation for labels and advertisements of functional health foods.

Nevertheless, the defendant considered this as a functional advertisement and made the disposition of this case on the premise that it falls under the subject of prior deliberation, which is illegal as it has abused or abused discretion.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) The Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality is the same.