logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.22 2016노2234
건강기능식품에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant’s advertisement was not a false or exaggerated advertisement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 16(1) of the Health Functional Foods Act defines “Function” as “the control of nutrients about the structure and function of the human body or obtain useful effects for health purposes, such as physiological effects,” under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Health Functional Foods Act, which defines “the functional function” as “the control of nutrients about the structure and function of the human body or obtain useful effects for health purposes, such as physiological effects.”

Article 18 (1) 6 of the same Act prohibits a person who intends to place labeling or advertising on food and drug from mandatory deliberation in accordance with the criteria, methods, and procedures for deliberation on labels or advertisements for health functional foods as determined by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety. Article 16 (1) of the same Act prohibits a person who fails to undergo deliberation under Article 16 (1) of the same Act or who places labeling or advertising different from the details deliberated, and Article 44 (4) of the same Act imposes criminal punishment on a person who violates the above prohibition provision.

These regulations aim to promote the improvement of people's health and consumer protection by preventing harm to people's health that may result in cruel, mismisunderstanding, or confusion with consumers, different from facts or exaggerated contents in relation to the functionality of health functional foods. Therefore, regardless of whether an actual advertisement is false, exaggerated, or slandered, it is not subject to deliberation under Article 16 (1) of the Health Functional Foods Act or is different from the contents deliberated upon.

arrow