beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, advertised mushroom using the expression “alternative medicine medicine for cancer and urology,” through the Internet site, it is not likely that a vehicle might be mistakenly confused as medicine, as well as that, there was no false or exaggerated advertisement prohibited by the Food Sanitation Act as to mushroom.
Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the legal principles on this.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the relevant Table 3 of Article 8(2)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act, based on the false and exaggerated indication that labeling or advertising with a content that has efficacy or efficacy in the prevention and treatment of a disease or that is likely to mislead or confuse as medicine with regard to food constitutes an exaggerated advertisement and thus, making an expression that referring to a specific disease, such as urology cancer, or efficacy or efficacy in the treatment of a disease, or that it is effective in the treatment of a disease, or that it constitutes an exaggerated advertisement with a characteristic of a disease, or that it is not allowed for the characteristic of a disease.
According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant's labeling or advertising with the content that the vehicle has an effect on the treatment of specific diseases, such as lung cancer, as shown in the facts charged in this case, constitutes false or exaggerated labeling or advertising prohibited by the Food Sanitation Act.
Therefore, the court below is just in finding guilty of the above facts charged, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing