본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재후보

Countermeasures against Unintentional Infringement of Legal Interests by Artificial Intelligence

박웅신
동북아학술저널연합 (Northeast Asian Studies Journal Institute (J-INSTITUTE))|2022.03|Robotics & AI Ethics|제7권 제1호|pp. 34-43

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Artificial IntelligenceThe Fourth Industrial RevolutionChanges in Criminal LawCriminal Subjectivity of Artificial IntelligenceContraction Effect
주제분류학제간연구

초록

Purpose: In recent years, the keyword that penetrates our society is the 4th Industrial Revolution. The 4th In-dustrial Revolution can be expressed in many ways, but the most important keyword is “connection”, and the key phenomenon from the perspective of this connection is the development of AI. The 4th Industrial Revolution and the impact of artificial intelligence are more than we think, and each academic division in society is discussing how to respond to it, and criminal law is no exception. In particular, fierce debate continues as to whether the criminal law will recognize the criminal subjectivity of AI, and whether punishment for artificial intelligence will be possible. With the development of AI, infringement of legal interests, whether intentional or unintentional, can become a reality. When users and developers intention-ally use artificial intelligence for crimes, AI becomes a human tool. The question is how to deal criminally with cases where legal interests are violated by intellectual activities or source code errors of AI, although not intended by users or developers. However, the premise to think about this is that AI technology is not complete. In other words, in the event of unintentional infringement of legal interests by AI, punishing humans based on this can have a contraction effect on development, resulting in a regression of AI technology with clear social utility. Method: Therefore, this study examines how the criminal law should respond in the event of infringement of legal interests while human factors by AI is excluded. To this end, we first look at the current status of criminal law responding to AI. Here, we will first examine whether a specific operation of AI will be included in an act that is the scope of criminal law, and, if so, whether to recognize criminal identity to AI that caused such a specific operation. Results: Through this process, the specific operation of AI can be subject to criminal law, and furthermore, if there is an infringement of legal interests by AI, it is confirmed that there is room for a crime. However, it is as-sumed that the action of AI is only unintentional infringement in which human elements are excluded. AI infringes on legal interests by human factors because it has the same meaning as human tools. Conclusion: Since the ongoing development of AI technology can hinder the development of artificial intelligence technology with clear social effectiveness, it argued that the criminal law should be supplemented after administrative procedures.

Abstract

Purpose: In recent years, the keyword that penetrates our society is the 4th Industrial Revolution. The 4th In-dustrial Revolution can be expressed in many ways, but the most important keyword is “connection”, and the key phenomenon from the perspective of this connection is the development of AI. The 4th Industrial Revolution and the impact of artificial intelligence are more than we think, and each academic division in society is discussing how to respond to it, and criminal law is no exception. In particular, fierce debate continues as to whether the criminal law will recognize the criminal subjectivity of AI, and whether punishment for artificial intelligence will be possible. With the development of AI, infringement of legal interests, whether intentional or unintentional, can become a reality. When users and developers intention-ally use artificial intelligence for crimes, AI becomes a human tool. The question is how to deal criminally with cases where legal interests are violated by intellectual activities or source code errors of AI, although not intended by users or developers. However, the premise to think about this is that AI technology is not complete. In other words, in the event of unintentional infringement of legal interests by AI, punishing humans based on this can have a contraction effect on development, resulting in a regression of AI technology with clear social utility. Method: Therefore, this study examines how the criminal law should respond in the event of infringement of legal interests while human factors by AI is excluded. To this end, we first look at the current status of criminal law responding to AI. Here, we will first examine whether a specific operation of AI will be included in an act that is the scope of criminal law, and, if so, whether to recognize criminal identity to AI that caused such a specific operation. Results: Through this process, the specific operation of AI can be subject to criminal law, and furthermore, if there is an infringement of legal interests by AI, it is confirmed that there is room for a crime. However, it is as-sumed that the action of AI is only unintentional infringement in which human elements are excluded. AI infringes on legal interests by human factors because it has the same meaning as human tools. Conclusion: Since the ongoing development of AI technology can hinder the development of artificial intelligence technology with clear social effectiveness, it argued that the criminal law should be supplemented after administrative procedures.

참고문헌 (34)

  1. 김준성, "AI시대와 형법의 기능변화에 관한 연구", 형사법연구, 31(3), pp.93~117 (2019), 한국형사법학회
  2. Park CS, "Negative Podiums for the Fourth Industrial Revolution", Pallet News, 74, pp.14~27 (2014)
  3. 홍승희, "4차 산업혁명과 형법의 변화?", 원광법학, 34(4), pp.75~94 (2018), 법학연구소[DOI]
  4. 김종호, "인공지능 로봇의 출현으로 인한 법적 논란에 관한 영역별 쟁점의 고찰", 법이론실무연구, 6(2), pp.225~263 (2018), 사단법인 한국법이론실무학회
  5. Wischmeyer T, "Regulating Artificial Intelligence" (2020), Springer
  6. 윤영철, "인공지능 로봇의 형사책임과 형법의 ‘인격적 인간상’에 대한 고찰", 원광법학, 35(1), pp.95~123 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
  7. 양천수, "인공지능과 법체계의 변화 ―형사사법을 예로 하여―", 법철학연구, 20(2), pp.45~76 (2017), 한국법철학회[DOI]
  8. 박광민, "인공지능 로봇의 범죄주체성과 형사책임의 귀속", 법학연구, 20(4), pp.153~178 (2017), 법학연구소
  9. 주현경, "인공지능과 형사법의 쟁점 - 책임귀속을 중심으로 -", 형사정책, 29(2), pp.7~31 (2017), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
  10. Jeong JW, "A Brief Review on the Criminal Discussion according to AI's Development", Science, Technology and Law, 7(2), pp.189~212 (2016)
  11. 김현수, "Instructional Systems Design to Reflect ETHICS in AI’s Rules of Engagement Learn-ing for Future Warfare", Robotics & AI Ethics, 6(4), pp.64~74 (2021), J-INSTITUTE
  12. Jongha Kim, "Future WARFARE and Artificial Intelligence Applications in the ROK Military: Problems and Alternatives", Robotics & AI Ethics, 6(2), pp.11~20 (2021), J-INSTITUTE
  13. Kang Young-don, "English TEACHING Method Using Flipped Learning in the Artificial Intelligence Era", Robotics & AI Ethics, 4(2), pp.14~21 (2019), J-INSTITUTE
  14. Yi Li, "AI Ethics and Privacy Right", Robotics & AI Ethics, 5(2), pp.27~33 (2020), J-INSTITUTE
  15. Yang CS, "Artificial Intelligence Revolution and Law" (2021), Pakyoungsa
  16. 이인곤, "인공지능 로봇의 형사법이론 체계에 관한 일고- 범죄능력·형사책임능력을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 18(3), pp.21~54 (2018), 한국법학회
  17. 김한균, "4차산업혁명과 형법의 인간상", 안암법학, (55), pp.135~160 (2018), 안암법학회[DOI]
  18. Lee Ae-ri, "Intelligent Digital Forensic Analysis Method for CYBER CRIME INVESTIGATION", Regulations, 1(2), pp.8~13 (2016), J-INSTITUTE
  19. 이원상, "인공지능 대응에 있어 형사법 이론의 한계", 형사법의 신동향, (59), pp.444~475 (2018), 대검찰청[DOI]
  20. 김성돈, "전통적 형법이론에 대한 인공지능 기술의 도전", 형사법연구, 30(2), pp.81~116 (2018), 한국형사법학회
  21. 차영희, "The Effect of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and Child Life Guidance Subject on Pre-Service Teachers", Robotics & AI Ethics, 6(4), pp.45~54 (2021), J-INSTITUTE
  22. Aeri Lee, "The Effect of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Literacy Education on University Students' Ethical Consciousness of Artificial Intelligence", Robotics & AI Ethics, 6(3), pp.52~61 (2021), J-INSTITUTE
  23. Kim HE, "Artificial Intelligence Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach" (2021), Pakyoungsa
  24. Kim SD, "Criminal Law" (2017), SKKU
  25. 양종모, "수사기법으로서의 데이터 마이닝에 대한 법적 고찰", 형사법의 신동향, (40), pp.145~175 (2013), 대검찰청[DOI]
  26. 윤영철, "형법의 목적으로서의 자유보장원칙에 관한 고찰", 아주법학, 8(4), pp.167~203 (2015), 법학연구소[DOI]
  27. 임석순, "형법상 인공지능의 책임귀속", 형사정책연구, 27(4), pp.1~23 (2016), 한국형사법무정책연구원
  28. 선종수, "의료 인공지능에 대한 형법적 고찰 -왓슨(Watson)을 중심으로-", 법과정책연구, 20(3), pp.249~274 (2020), 한국법정책학회[DOI]
  29. 송시강, "자율 시스템, 인공지능과 로봇: 형법의 관점에서 지향성은?", 경제규제와 법, 12(2), pp.26~38 (2019), 법학연구소
  30. 이인곤, "4차 산업혁명과 형법적 제 문제에 관한 고찰 -인공지능을 중심으로 -", 인문사회과학연구, 26(1), pp.96~122 (2018), 인문사회과학연구소[DOI]
  31. 김나루, "인공지능으로 인한 법적 문제와 그 대안에 관한 연구", 홍익법학, 19(2), pp.343~370 (2018), 법학연구소[DOI]
  32. 송호영, "인공지능 로봇은 법인격을 가질 수 있는가?", 저스티스, 184, pp.83~113 (2021), 한국법학원[DOI]
  33. 이인영, "인공지능 로봇에 관한 형사책임과 책임주의 -유기천교수의 법인의 행위주체이론과 관련하여-", 홍익법학, 18(2), pp.31~57 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
  34. 김준성, "AI범죄에 대한 형법의 적용문제 -정범배후의 정범의 관점에서-", 법학연구, 21(1), pp.103~121 (2021), 한국법학회

관련 논문AI추천

The Study on the CRIMINAL Subject and Liability of AI RobotsBaek Min-je동북아학술저널연합 · Robotics & AI Ethics2017 · 제2권 제2호인공지능(AI)의 법인격 부여와 위법 행위 책임에 관한 연구김용호한국컴퓨터정보학회 · 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지2024 · 제29권 제12호전통적 형법이론에 대한 인공지능 기술의 도전김성돈한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2018 · 제30권 제2호인공지능(AI)의 발전과 형사사법의 주요논점송기복, 정용기한국경찰연구학회 · 한국경찰연구2019 · 제18권 제2호인공지능과 형법 책임 귀속의 한계와 가능성최호진사법발전재단 · 사법2024 · 제1권 제70호인공지능의 형사책임에 관한 소고황만성법과정책연구원 · 법과정책2018 · 제24권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

The Relationship between Smartphone Overdependence and the Adolescents’ Smartphone Use Time during Tasks: Moderating Effects of Purposeful Use for Tasks이봉민pp. 1-9Exploration for Educational Application of Metaverse: Focusing on Implication for Use in English EducationDaeun Hanpp. 10-21Analysis of the Effectiveness of Online Education of Liberal Arts Coding Classes in the AI Era: The Mediating Effect of Learning FlowAeri Leepp. 22-33Cyber Education for Korean Traditional Seodang Culture and Its Some Implication to Multiculturalism in the Korean SocietyKyungjoo Lee, 박균열pp. 44-55A Classification and Characteristic of Lexicon in Ethic Development SuanXueQiMeng Class황국정pp. 56-64
원문 보기