1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court is justifiable to have a duty of care to ascertain whether the Defendant, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, was in charge of the installation and safety management of diving pool facilities and safety management and to lend equipment and to verify whether instructors, etc. are able to take lessons of others than the Defendant.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence trial and duty of care, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine or

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the first instance court as to the third ground of appeal, the court below is justified in holding that the causal relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the death of the victim is recognized on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from cases and are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.