The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. A person who has advertised that the defendant might be mistaken for having medical efficacy and effects for the following reasons:

The judgment of the court below which determined the seal is unfair.

① The container of “E” products sold by the Defendant (hereinafter “E”) is marked only as a multi-purpose detailed product, and does not include the use related to the parts of human body.

(2) The defendant has an effect on the removal of fump.

It is not definitely advertised, and odor is not a disease, so there is no possibility of misunderstanding it as a medicine.

③ The Defendant merely published the relevant contents within the meaning of sharing the private law, and also perceived the general public, so there is no risk of misunderstanding them as medicine.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the term “pharmaceuticals” under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act includes all the concepts used for the purpose of diagnosing, treating, alleviating, treating, or preventing human or animal diseases, or used for the purpose of exerting pharmacological influence on the structure and function of human or animal.

Therefore, regardless of the existence of any efficacy in the pharmacological action, the component, shape (containers, packaging, design, etc.), name, the purpose of use indicated therein, efficacy, effect, usage, capacity, publicity or explanation at the time of sale shall be comprehensively determined and recognized as being used for the above purpose or the effect shall be determined in light of the general public of the society.

In the case of claimed drugs, all of them shall be deemed drugs subject to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act regulation (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4785, Oct. 14, 2010). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, an advertisement that is likely to mislead the Defendant as drugs, in view of the following circumstances:

The lower court’s determination that determined the person is justifiable.

(1) Article 61 (2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act shall apply.