[Defendant B] The guilty part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B (including the acquittal part of the reasons) is reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants 1, other than Defendant H, do not constitute “advertisement” prohibited under Article 13(1) of the Food Sanitation Act, which prohibits the act of publicity with verbal lectures against many people of Defendant B (hereinafter “ Black ginseng”).

2) The sentence of the lower court against the rest of the Defendants except for Defendant A, B, and each fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant C, D, E, I: Each fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant F, and G are too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1 of the court below found the following facts: (a) in collusion with Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and H (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant H, etc.”) to the effect, effect, or advertisement that is likely to mislead or confuse the N (hereinafter referred to as “N”) as stated in this part of the facts charged; and (b) in collusion with Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and I (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant I, etc.”) about the O black ginseng (hereinafter referred to as “ Black ginseng”) as described in this part of the facts charged, it can be recognized the fact that the Defendant F, and G sold them by advertising the contents that are likely to mislead, confuse, or confuse with health functional foods, as described in this part of the facts charged.

2) Improper sentencing (Defendant F, G, and H Prosecutor asserted the mistake of facts and the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of Defendant H’s appeal against the lower court, but Defendant H was acquitted at the lower court. As such, the allegation of the illegality of sentencing seems to be erroneous.

Defendant F, G, and H are excluded for the remaining Defendants except Defendant F, G, and H.