The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the Defendant alleged the misapprehension of the legal principle explained to the effect that the health functional foods, etc. sold at the above event site to the customers who found the above event site in the course of operating the event site where the Defendant sells health functional foods, etc. under the trade name of T, are effective in preventing and treating diseases. However, this does not constitute an act of "advertisement" prohibited under Article 13(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 18(1) of the Health Functional Foods Act, and Article 24(2)

B. The lower court’s sentence (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, advertisements prohibited under Article 13(1) and (2) of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1080, May 9, 2014) refer to the act of indicating or informing information that is likely to have efficacy in preventing and treating diseases with respect to the names, manufacturing methods, quality, nutrition prices, raw materials, ingredients, etc. of foods, etc. by radio, television newspapers, magazines, music images, printed materials, signboards, Internet, or other methods, or that are prohibited under Article 13(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1080, May 21, 2014); and Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the Health Functional Foods Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1269, May 21, 2014).

information that is likely to be mistaken or confused as a pharmaceutical product is identified or known as such.

Meanwhile, Article 24(2) and (3) of the Medical Devices Act, and the Medical Devices Act.