The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) of this case’s health functional food (hereinafter “instant product”) obtained functional certification from the Food and Drug Safety Center (hereinafter “Food and Drug Center”). As such, the Defendant’s use of the word “high blood pressure” in the product advertising title alone does not constitute an indication or advertisement that misleads ordinary consumers into misconception and confusion as medicine.

2. Determination

A. In interpreting the meaning of Article 3 Subparag. 1 and Article 18(1) and (2) of the former Health Functional Foods Act (Amended by Act No. 9932, Jan. 18, 2010); Article 21 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Health Functional Foods Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 19, Mar. 19, 2010); Article 18(1) of the same Act prohibits all labeling and advertising of the pharmacological efficacy of health functional foods.

It cannot be seen that such labeling or advertising is permitted if it is the same as the labeling or advertising of the effects incidental to functional health foods or occurring as a result of taking nutrition within the essential limit of efficacy, which is the functional health foods. Thus, the above provision should be interpreted narrowly to regulate only the labeling or advertising that directly and mainly aims to prevent and treat a specific disease, and it should be interpreted that any labeling or advertising goes beyond the limit as an advertisement for functional health foods, and thus, it should be determined specifically by the legal application institution based on the average perception of the general public (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3444, Dec. 23, 2010).