logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2016.07.13 2015고정1084
식품위생법위반
Text

The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Reasons

1. No person who intends to sell foods, etc. shall indicate or advertise that such foods, etc. have efficacy or effect in preventing and treating diseases, or that such foods, etc. may be mistaken for or confused as medicine or health functional foods;

Nevertheless, from August 7, 2015 to August 8, 2015, the Defendant shows at a public relations center located in a “D cafeteria” underground warehouse located in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, about 70 visitors, “Arosber.” The Defendant shows one of the 70 visitors “Arosber,” and the mushroom is good for blood pressure, urology, and urine.

It made an advertisement with the content that is likely to cause mistake or confusion as a drug or a functional health food that has efficacy for the prevention and treatment of a disease by publicizing "good in cancer."

2. Determination

A. "Advertisements that have efficacy or effect in the prevention and treatment of diseases, or that are likely to mislead or confuse them with medicine or health functional foods" prohibited under Article 13(1) of the Food Sanitation Act means "the act of indicating or informing information that the quality, nutrition of foods, etc. has efficacy in treating diseases with respect to the quality, raw materials, ingredients, etc. by radio, television, newspapers, magazines, music, video, printed materials, signboards, the Internet or other means," and "the act of indicating or informing that the food seller has efficacy in treating diseases with respect to a specific buyer while selling food."

Explanation and Counseling

Even if this was, it was prohibited by Article 13(1) of the Act.

not, but repeating such an act.

On the other hand, it is not different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do15002, Apr. 30, 2014). (b) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the above facts charged is insufficient to prove that the Defendant advertised the above meaning by means of printed materials, etc. in excess of an explanation or consultation.

see.

arrow