Whether an advertisement that is the main ingredient of Bodin may be mistaken for the medical efficacy, effect, and effect of a medicine that is an advertisement that the fireworks whose main ingredient is Bodin has efficacy in skin use (negative)

The so-called "advertisement" where the defendants advertised that the main ingredient of the Bodiin, which he/she manufactured, contains fireworks and fireworks as necessary for skin solution, and that the above advertisement constitutes an exaggerated advertisement for the efficacy of cosmetics, regardless of the fact that the above advertisement constitutes an advertisement for the efficacy of cosmetics, it cannot be viewed as an advertisement that is likely to be mistaken for the medical efficacy and effect of medicine under Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Ise-mail

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No5099, 83 elementary224 delivered on November 16, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As to habitual fraud:

Examining the evidence presented by the judgment of the court of first instance by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which ruled the defendants as habitual fraud since all facts were lawfully recognized and there were no errors in violation of the rules of evidence in the process of evidence preparation.

In the end, the issue is nothing more than the fact-finding and legal application of the fact-finding court.

2. As to the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, although the court of first instance is not allowed to advertise that the defendants are likely to have medical efficacy or efficacy with respect to non-pharmaceutical drugs, the court of first instance recognized the fact that the victim's interest, etc. had the effect of preventing mination, etc. of Bodin, which is not a medicine manufactured in the Korean Alley Emergency Co., Ltd., and judged that the above act violates Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.

However, according to the records (in particular, Article 137 of the investigation records), the defendants prepared an advertisement stating that the main ingredients of the Bosin, which are manufactured by the defendants, contain fireworks and nutrientss necessary for skin use, and that such as prevention of aging and removal of meat, etc., are effective. It is recognized that the above-mentioned advertisement about the effect of skin use, which is the main ingredients of the products, constitutes an advertisement with the contents that are likely to be mistaken for the medical efficacy, effect, and effects of the medicines under Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, apart from those falling under an exaggerated advertisement about the efficacy of cosmetics.

The judgment of the court below should be interpreted as a law interpretation on medical efficacy and effect as stipulated in Article 55 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this point.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)