"We find that the requirements issued in this instance are not outside the intended scope of the law on control of tobacco products. The requirements were issued to protect the people and our youth. At this stage, whether we admit that there are no studies on the several impacts or damages that may result, such as damages resulting from the [requirement for] enlargement of the images from an area of 55 percent of the front and back of the cigarette pack to 85 percent, which the two Defendants assert is done to comply with the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC); whether issue of the said Notice without any study of the impacts and damages that may result is an excessive burden for the two Plaintiffs, whether these requirements will actually achieve the intended purpose or create benefit for consumers in an appropriate ratio to the damage suffered by the two Plaintiffs; whether the two Plaintiffs participated in the procedure by which the Notice was issued; whether the proposals and objections by parties having an interest in the matter were heard; and whether there will be impacts on the trademark rights held by the two Plaintiffs, these things are matters that will be considered later during the case. However, they may not be significant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion in deciding whether to order suspension of enforcement of the regulation at this stage. The facts of the case establish clearly that there was no report of any study of these matters. It also appears that the two Defendants submitted in defense that there are research studies and opinion surveys relating the warning images on cigarette packs to tobacco consumption. Even if these facts were not submitted in the Administrative Court of First Instance, this problem is still recognized as a problem of the public good that the Defendants may assert at this stage. Further, even if the facts establish that the effect of expansion of warning images on cigarette packs on consumption by existing smokers is only temporary, the warnings will still affect new consumers or prospective consumers of tobacco to some degree. In any event, the arguments explaining the facts brought by the two Plaintiffs are matters for consideration and deliberation later in the case."