1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted at the first instance court and the lower court.

A. As a dangerous sports that takes place in a deep water depth, scoo diving is encouraged to put “scoo ice,” not mixed, but to put together “scood,” it has a duty of care to take necessary measures against each other in the event of an emergency between even though scoos who are aware of each other in a dangerous situation and ice ice ice ice ice together, and if scoods who work in the middle and experienced as a multi-user, they have a duty of care to take necessary measures against each other, and if scoods who are even ice ice ice, they have a higher duty of care to observe the state of scoods from time to time in the middle of the water, and to prepare to cope with the emergency situation.

B. In the instant case, the Defendant: (a) was a person holding a multilateral instructor’s license who has been more than twice the marine ice and experienced more than the victim who has been more than twice the marine ice experience; (b) was a person guiding the victim to obtain an open ice license; (c) was aware of the victim’s experience or real ability; (d) further, the instant ice is difficult to view the same as general leisure ice due to diverse ice out of the limit of the license acquired by the injured party; and (e) the Defendant was using a multilateral master, which is an important device, from the injured party at the time of the instant case, and ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice in the underwater depth, etc., regardless of whether the various ice ice ice ice ice ice was ice ice education, the Defendant informed the victim of the deep ice ice as well as the know about the situation that may occur in deep ice ice ice ice, even after the deep ice ice ice ice commenced.