A. Whether permission is required to change the method of manufacturing food under the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823, May 10, 1986) or the ratio of the composition of food (affirmative)

B. Illegality of manufacturing and selling without permission where non-harmful foods are not harmful foods

A. Article 23 (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823 of May 10, 1986) stipulates that the change of manufacturing items and the addition of manufacturing items subject to permission from the authorities shall include the change of manufacturing methods and components distribution ratio. Thus, in light of the legislative intent of the Food Sanitation Act and the provisions of the above Article, even if the defendants obtained marketing approval of manufacturing additional items at 100% of the ingredients distribution ratio, the defendants' act of manufacturing additional dust by lowering manufacturing costs without permission from the intent to take unfair profits by lowering the manufacturing costs, and then manufacturing the additional dust by mixing the brecied bre in the addition is in violation of the above provision of the Act.

B. The act of manufacturing and selling products which are not harmful foods without permission is deemed to violate Article 23 of the same Act.

Article 23 (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823 of May 10, 1986)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Park Il-il

Seoul High Court Decision 86No2323, 86No3490 decided Dec. 23, 198

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

Article 23 (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 3823 of May 10, 1986) which was enforced at the time of the crime of this case provides that when a food manufacturer alters or adds permitted manufactured items, he shall obtain permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City, or the Do governor. The alteration or addition includes modification of manufacturing methods or ingredients distribution ratio, and it is obvious in light of the legislative intent of the Food Sanitation Act which aims to improve public health and contribute to the improvement of food nutrition, and the provisions of Article 23 (3) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Do2426, Feb. 9, 1982). Meanwhile, the defendants' act of manufacturing and selling food without permission is not in violation of Article 23 (1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 1500, Jul. 12, 197; 2000Do1705, supra).

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)