At this time, the defendant was contacted with the victim F (M, 60 years old) who was working on the upper floor in the upper floor when the above detailed system flows into the floor.

As a result, the defendant suffered by negligence the 21st day of treatment and the 2th day of motion pictures.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant suffered injury as stated in its reasoning on the floor of a bath by the stowing agents, in light of the following circumstances:

It is difficult to readily conclude, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Defendant’s sprinking on the floor of a bath contains a harmful phrase “it may cause severe damage to the skin, image or long-term,” and the material safety and health materials pertaining thereto also contain the content that “it may cause damage to the skin with severe images and snow.” However, according to the result of the commission of appraisal by the National Science Investigation Agency, the amount of the spH0.5 is the amount of the spH00 (pH0.5)’s spH0, which may cause a spH disorder, corrosion, salt, image, etc. at the time of the skin contact.

However, there is a difference between the effect of exposure and exposure according to the degree of dilution.

② The victim stated in the investigative agency that “at the time, the Defendant was fluord under his scarcity, and thus smelled and fluored, so that the sacratic flows into low scarkes, thereby asking the sacrine in the process of cleaning the sacrine by drinking water.” The victim stated in the investigative agency that “at the time, the Defendant was fluored under his sacrine, and then, the sacratic was asked at the time” in this court.