The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant merely allowed the victims to use water skiing facilities free of charge, not allowing them to use water play facilities.

Even in the case of a water skiing ground, it is not the case that the company in charge of U.S. selection competitions and the general use contract thereof was concluded.

2) The Defendant provided victims’ daily life jackets with simple safety education prior to the commencement of the use of the water skiing ground, and all the players divided life jackets into life jackets.

Nevertheless, the victim used water play facilities without wearing life jackets.

3) At the time of the instant case, Q, a qualified safety personnel for lifesaving, was permanently stationed.

In addition, the authority to guide the victim was also H in the leading person of the victim's behaviors.

4) The victim was in his own possession of the victim himself while photographing the victim himself, and no one could be aware that the victim was in water.

5) Therefore, the Defendant had a duty of care to ensure that safety personnel are additionally placed or the Defendant was not able to use water play facilities at all by predicting that the victim would benefit from water play facilities, and that there was a duty of care to control and manage the Defendant’s water play facilities.

It is difficult to see it.

6) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months’s imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case to be justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.