[1] The case holding that if the defendant informed false facts about the nature, condition, etc. of the product, even though he had no intention to commit a crime of fraud by selling it, it constitutes a crime of violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, even though he/she convictions about medical efficacy

[2] Whether medical efficacy and effect indicated or advertised on the establishment of a crime of violation of Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act requires falseness (negative)

[1] The case holding that Article 45 (1) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act prohibits multi-level sellers from misunderstanding that the quality, etc. of goods is considerably superior or more favorable than that of the goods, and since the quality, etc. of goods in the above provision includes not only the efficacy of the goods, but also the character, condition, materials, ingredients, etc. of the goods, it constitutes a violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act where the defendant informed false facts as to the nature, condition, etc. of the goods, even though he did not have any criminal intent by selling them through multiple experience cases, etc.

[2] A crime of violation of Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is established by making an indication or advertisement that is not a drug but likely to mislead the misunderstanding of medical efficacy, efficacy, etc., or by selling, storing, or displaying for the purpose of sale products with such indication or advertisement. However, with respect to food products, Article 11 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 6 (2) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act that does not regard health-oriented foods as false advertisements, etc. as false advertisements, the crime does not constitute an indication or advertisement that is likely to mislead the misunderstanding of medical efficacy, effect, etc. under Article 55 (2) of the same Act, and the above crime does not require that medical efficacy, effect, etc. indicated or advertised for non-pharmaceutical drugs be false.

[1] Article 45 (1) 12 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act / [2] Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Article 11 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 6 (2) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Do2925 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 830)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Yong-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 99No2269 delivered on March 7, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 45(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act prohibits multi-level sellers from pointing out false information about the quality, etc. of goods or from being considerably superior or more favorable than actual ones. The quality, etc. of goods under the above provision refers not only to the efficacy of the goods, but also to the character, condition, materials, ingredients, etc. of the goods. According to the records, although the defendant was aware of the fact that he cannot prove scientific facts as to whether lerady water has a self-help, and whether the molecular structure is fixed at temperature regardless of temperature, etc., le. S.C.B. E. (S.B. E.) as 10% rady water that passed the system of 100 cc, and thus, the court below's determination on the quality, etc. of the goods is just and correct, and there was no such fact-finding system as referring to the fact-finding theory that the defendant did not know about the quality, efficacy, etc. of the human body as the basic form of rady, etc.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The crime of violation of Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is established by labeling or advertising contents which are not medicines but likely to be mistaken for medical efficacy, efficacy, effect, etc., or by selling, storing or displaying for the purpose of sale: Provided, That in the case of food, Article 11 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 6 (2) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall not be regarded as false advertisements with medical efficacy, effect, etc. under Article 55 (2) of the above Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which are likely to be mistaken for medical efficacy, effect, etc. (refer to Supreme Court Decision 97Do2925 delivered on February 13, 1998). Since the above crime is not a medicine, medical efficacy, effect, etc. indicated or advertised for the purpose of sale, it is not justified in the judgment of the court below that there is no possibility that medical efficacy, effect, etc. can be mistaken for the purpose of promoting the medical efficacy, substance and efficacy of the defendant's sale while selling water, it is an expression or advertisement with specific contents of medical efficacy.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)