자율주행자동차 교통사고의 형사책임

Abstract

New criminal laws and legal principles must be developed and provided in order to prepare for the accidents which autonomous cars, running on the road, can cause. The self-driving vehicle is divided into five levels according to its development degree. This study focuses on Level 4(Limited Self-Driving Automation) requiring limited driver’s intervention and Level 5(Full Self-Driving Automation) excluding driver’s intervention completely. First, the criminal liability of limited self-driving car accidents is as below. In case that a driver, according to his wish, can choose the autonomous driving mode as “a selective option”, the driver should be criminally responsible for the accident caused by his breach of duty. This is why the autonomous driving mode is not complete and the driver must fulfill the various obligations under the Road Traffic Act. In case that the self-driving car is designed to operate in the autonomous mode at normal times and to call on driver's intervention only for emergency alarm, the driver would not be criminally liable for the accident if the accident occurred before the alarm. However, the driver should be criminally responsible for the accident on the basis of his negligence by omission if the accident is caused by his failure to switch to the manual mode after the alarm. In case that a traffic accident occurs after the switch from the autonomous mode to the manual operation mode, the driver should be criminally responsible on the ground that he fails to properly handle the situation although there is a possibility to avoid the accident. However, the driver, even if he changes to the manual mode after the alarm, should not be responsible for the accident when the interval between the alarm and the accident is very short that there is no possibility of avoiding the accident. When the alarm is rung too late for the driver to cope with the accident despite the circumstances where the danger of the accident is objectively expected, the self-driving car manufacturer should be liable for the accident. Furthermore, the manufacturer should be responsible even when the alarm is rung immediately after detecting possibility of the danger but there is no chance for the driver to avoid the “imminent” accident. This is why the manufacturer needs to design the system of “automatic action first, and then manual transition” in such an urgent situation. Second, it is not possible for the driver to recognize the possibility of foreseeability and avoidance of the accident because the driver completely trusts the function of the autonomous driving with regard to criminal responsibility of the Full Self-Driving Automation. The driver of the vehicle cannot be considered as a person any more on the ground that the autonomous car of this level is a completely unmanned vehicle in which the driver does not need to intervene in all driving situations. Some suggest that the autonomous driving system, so-called AI, should be criminally responsible for the accident. However, criminal liability of the full self-driving automation results in that of the manufacturer. In case that an automaker manufactures autonomous vehicles in accordance with the safety rules under the related laws and a car accident occurs due to an issue that cannot be predicted at the time of manufacture, it is difficult to punish the corporation under the principles regarding negligence. Therefore, this problem should be solved by establishing a new provision on product liability in the penal code. In addition, the manufacturer must secure the safety required by the law, pay attention to the possibility of malfunction of self-driving cars and predict the possibility of car accidents even after launching the autonomous vehicle on the market, and strive to prevent occurrence of car accidents by appropriate measures such as recall if a defect is found. The manufacturer breaching the duty of care should be criminally responsible on the ground of negligence by commission or omission.