The meaning of "manufacture of Cosmetics" under Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

The purport of Article 26 (1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act that provides for the permission for the manufacture of cosmetics is to prevent any positive or passive harm to the public health and sanitation by imposing strict regulations on manufacturers because cosmetics are closely related to the public health. In light of the legislative intent of this Act, the term "manufacture of cosmetics", which is subject to permission under the above Act, means all acts that are recognized as cosmetics under Article 2 (8) of the same Act or are generated in claimed goods, regardless of their actual efficacy, regardless of their ingredients, shapes (containers, packages, packagings, etc.), names, purposes of use indicated, efficacy, efficacy, capacity, publicity or explanation at the time of sale, etc.

Articles 26(1) and 2(8) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Lee Jae-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 91No3126 delivered on December 21, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 26(1) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides, “A person who intends to engage in the manufacturing or subdivision business of drugs ...... (hereinafter “drugs, etc.”) shall obtain manufacturing permission for drugs, etc. from the Minister of Health and Welfare for each factory by type of business, as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and shall obtain marketing approval or report items by item.” Article 2(8) of the same Act provides, “A cosmetic” means a string, spraying, or other similar goods used to keep the human body clean or US and to keep the skin or hair in health.”

As above, the purport of which the manufacturing business of cosmetics is permitted is to prevent any positive or passive harm to public health by imposing strict regulations on manufacturers because cosmetics are closely related to public health, and thereby securing the quality, effectiveness and stability of cosmetics, and in light of such legislative intent, the term "manufacturing of cosmetics" which is subject to permission under the above Act shall be construed as the act of creating goods which are recognized as cosmetics under Article 2 (8) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, regardless of their actual efficacy and efficacy as cosmetics (see Supreme Court Decision 290Do298 delivered on January 15, 191) by comprehensively assessing the ingredients, shapes (containers, containers, packages, designs, etc.), names of the objects, the purpose of use indicated, efficacy and effect, usage and dosage, publicity or explanation at the time of sale, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do298 delivered on January 15, 199).

2. According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendants jointly comply with the 10 foot water tank 15gs, 200g scools, 200g glycerine, 4 kilograms, ELS 400g fluor, and 10g fluor in a container after mixing them with water 4 kilograms, and then contain them in a container with water 95gs, and then sell them for general sale together with the use manual. The defendants' name "SVOND" in its use manual, and the above products are marked in the 10 foot water tank 20cc, so that they can easily be seen as being in a specific way that they can easily be seen as being influorological content and thus, they can not be seen as being influorable with a new cluorical substance that can easily be seen as being influorized with the function of a new cluorary organ that can be easily seen as being influorized with its function.

In addition, since the definition of cosmetics under Article 2 (8) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act cannot be deemed to be clearly abstract and unclear, the argument that the above provision violates Article 12 (1) of the Constitution, which declares the principle of no punishment without law, cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)