The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles, despite the fact that the Defendant could have mistakenly recognized F as medicine as stated in the facts charged of this case, or by making indications or advertisements likely to deceive or mislead consumers.

2. No manufacturer, manufacturer-seller or seller of cosmetics in the facts charged of the instant case shall place any indication or advertisement likely to mislead consumers into thinking the cosmetics are medicines, or any other indication or advertisement likely to deceive consumers or mislead consumers.

A. On January 2016, the Defendant made an indication or advertisement likely to mislead himself/herself as a medicine. On the Internet site (E) operated by himself/herself, the Defendant posted an advertisement “F” (hereinafter referred to as the “cosmetic in this case”) on the cosmetic’s website (E), which is a cosmetic, to obtain not only the primary improvement, but also the external completion/minium effects during the three-dimensional period, and the cosmetic’s flick content / glick with the flick with the flick with the flick with the flick with the flick with the flick with the flick content. In the heart, Pepsisid’s continuous flick effect with the flive effect of double printing on the surface and the heart, thereby making it erroneous for the Defendant to have erred in recognizing it as a medicine or advertisement.

B. The Defendant posted other indications or advertisements that are different from facts or are likely to mislead consumers, and the Defendant advertised the instant cosmetics, which are cosmetics, at the same time and place as the above A. A. The same manner as the above, is advertising.