| Abstrakt: |
With the development of artificial intelligence(AI), the jobs of many human experts are threatened, and this also applies to the legal profession. This study attempted to investigate whether AI can actually replace humans in the legal profession, especially the role of judges making final judgments. For this purpose, from the perspective of uniqueness neglect, this study was conducted to confirm the effect of involvement and the severity on acceptance of the judgment made by the AI judge (Experiment 1) and the AI jury (Experiment 2). The involvement was manipulated as if the subject who was sentenced for committing a crime was his or her family (mother, father) or stranger, and the severity was manipulated by the extent of the damage, the perception of the crime, and the number of applied crimes. In Experiment 1, the interactive effect of involvement and severity was found. Specifically, when the involvement was low, the acceptance of AI judges was higher in high severity (vs. low severity). Conversely, when the involvement was high, the acceptance of AI judges was higher in low severity (vs. high severity). The same interactions as in Experiment 1 occurred in Experiment 2. Specifically, when the involvement was low, a larger number of AI jury members were allocated in high severity (vs. low severity). On the other hand, when the involvement was high, the number of AI juries increased in low severity (vs. high severity). This study has implications in that it is the first experimental study in Korea on artificial intelligence legal judgment and that it presents the prospects for the jobs of legal experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
