The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

(a) the principle of clarity derived from the principle of no crime without the law means that anyone can anticipate what the act is intended to punish and what punishment is and what is the elements of a crime that makes it possible to determine that person's act;

However, since the elements of punishment laws must be clear, all the elements of punishment laws should not be defined as a simple descriptive concept. Even though they used the concept requiring the complementary interpretation of judges in a somewhat broad range, if a person has a sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment by means of ordinary interpretation, if the person has a sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment, it is not contrary to clarity.

Furthermore, whether a certain legal norm is clear or not can be determined by whether a criminal can be predicted because he/she can know the meaning of the norm, and whether arbitrary interpretation or enforcement of the norm is excluded. The meaning of the legal norm is not only the language but also its purpose of legislation or legislative intent, legislative history, and systematic structure of the legal norm.

Ultimately, whether the legal norm violates the principle of clarity depends on whether it can obtain an interpretation standard that can reasonably grasp the meaning of the norm by the above interpretation method.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12939 Decided January 29, 2014, etc.). B.

The purpose of Article 1 of the Food Sanitation Act is to contribute to the improvement of national health by preventing sanitary harm caused by food, promoting the qualitative improvement of food nutrition, and providing correct information on food.