• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.47-75
• /
• 2010

Two experiments were conducted to explore whether the Or structure works as a default causal model in inferring the causal structure from the contingency data. The contingencies of three unfamiliar variables were used in Experiment 1. Participants inferred the Or structure quite well from the OR data, but incorrectly inferred the Or structure from the And data for about a little less than half of the time, and almost always inferred the Or structure from the chain data. The results suggested that the Or interpretation can be the default causal model. The prevalence of the Or interpretation from the contingency data was reported even when the three variables were familiar ones in Experiment 2. Multinomial modeling performed on the results of the two experiments strongly suggested that the Or interpretation work as a default causal model.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.323-338
• /
• 2013

There are multiple process mechanism in causal reasoning, which is estimation of the causal strength between cause and result. Further, because these mechanisms operate on different time phase during causal reasoning, it is highly possible that different individual difference factors are related to individual mechanisms of causal reasoning. Especially, the phenomena of conditionalization and discounting reflect attention to multiple potential causes when people infer the relationship between cause and effect. In this study, we manipulated self-construal which is an individual difference factor that reflects context sensitivity in cognition. As results, no difference was observed in conditionalization between individuals with an independent self-construal and those with an interdependent self-construal. However, independent self-construal group was observed to be lower in discounting than the interdependent self-construal group. The results indicate that conditionalization and discounting are independent cognitive process in human causal reasoning.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.310-320
• /
• 2019

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to identify the causes of the retardation of administrative relief under the Special Act on Remedy for Damages Caused by Humidifier Disinfectant and to suggest the systematic refurbishment of this act for the quick and fair of relief of damages. Methods: This study was conducted through the application of the case study, literature review and systematic interpretation of law methods. Results: The disease subject to administrative relief under the Special Act is defined as health damage causally associated to a substantial degree with exposure to humidifier disinfectant. This definition is a strict requirement in light of the legislative purpose of prompt and fair relief of damages. Furthermore, the damage relief committee established under the Special Act judged causal relationships according to a rigorous standard in terms of medical certainty. This medical evidence-based judgment is a result of the committee's failure to understand the normative meaning and function of a causal relationship as an outcome of inference based on empirical rules and common sense. Conclusions: Humidifier disinfectant health damage should be defined as a health-related injury capable of occurring or deteriorating after exposure to humidifier disinfectant (HD). If the fact that a particular injury occurred or worsened after exposure to HD was found, then the damage can be presumed as being caused by HD. However, this might not be the case when the injury was considered to have occurred or been exacerbated entirely due to other factors.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.199-247
• /
• 2012

According to the review and analysis of medical cases that are assigned to the Supreme Court and all local High Court in 2011 and that are presented in the media, it was found that the following categories were taken seriously, medical and pharmaceutical product liability, the third principle of trust between medical institutions, negligence and causation estimation, responsibility limit, the meaning of medical records and related judgment of disturbed substantiation, Oriental doctors' duties to explain the procedures, IMS events, whether one can claim for each medical care operated by non-physician health care institutions to the nonmedical domain in the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the basis of norms for each claim. In the cases related to medical pharmaceutical product liability, Supreme Court alleviated burden of proof for accidents with medical and pharmaceutical products prior to the practice of Product Liability Law and onset the point of negative prescription as the time of damage strikes to condition feasibility of the specific situation. In the cases related to the 3rd principle of trust between medical institutions, the Supreme Court refused to sentence the doctor who has trusted the judgment of the same third-party doctors the violations of the care duty. With respect to proof of a causal relationship and damages in a medical negligence case, the Supreme Court decided that it is unjust to deny negligence by the materials of causal relationship rejecting the original verdict and clarified that the causal relationship shall not deny the reasons to limit doctors' responsibilities. In order not put burden on patients with disadvantages in which medical records and the description of the practice or the most fundamental and important evidence to prove negligence and causation are being neglected, the Supreme Court admitted in the hospital's responsibility for the case of the neonate death of suffocation without properly listed fetal heart rate and uterine contraction monitor. On the other hand, the Seoul Western District Court has admitted alimony for altering and forging medical records. With respect to doctors' obligations to description, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to explain the foreseen risks by the combination of oriental and western medicines emphasizing the right of patient's self-determination. However, questions have arisen whether it is realistically feasible or not. In a case of an unlicensed doctor performing intramuscular stimulation treatment (IMS), the Supreme Court put off its decision if it was an unlicensed medical practice as to put limitation of eastern and western medical practices, but it declared that IMS practice was an acupuncture treatment therefore the plaintiff's conduct being an illegal act. In the future, clear judgment on this matter should be made. With respect to the claim of bills from non-physical health care institutions, the Supreme Court decided to void it for the implementation of the arrangement is contrary to the commitments made in the medical law and therefore, it is invalid to claim. In addition, contrast to the private healthcare professionals, who are subject to redemption according to the National Healthcare Insurance Law, the Seoul High Court explicitly confirmed that the non-professionals who receive the tort operating profit must return the unjust enrichment and have the liability for damages. As mentioned above, a relatively wide range of topics were discussed in medical field of 2011. In Korea's health care environment undergoing complex changes day by day, it is expected to see more diverse and in-depth discussions striding out to the development in the field of health care.

• The Journal of Bigdata
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.215-229
• /
• 2020

The interest in machine learning is growing in all industries, but it is difficult to apply it to real-world tasks because of inexplicability. This paper introduces a case of developing a financial customer churn prediction model for a securities company, and introduces the research results on an attempt to develop a machine learning model that can be explained using the SHAP Value methodology and derivation of interpretability. In this study, a total of six customer churn models are compared and analyzed, and the cause of customer churn is inferred through the classification and data analysis of SHAP Value and the type of customer asset change. Based on the results of this study, it would be possible to use it as a basis for comprehensive judgment, such as using the Value of the deviation prediction result that can infer the cause of the marketing manager's actual customer marketing in the future and establishing a target marketing strategy for each customer.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.13-21
• /
• 2014

The problem of the cases of Soribada and Winny is their duplexity that they could be used legally and illegally. The issue called 'The crime of aiding through the neutral behavior' is about whether the program developer who shared the file sharing program letting unspecified public infringe the copyright could be punished or not. Many theories about limiting the traditional scope of punishment of aider have been maintained. However, it is questionable whether it is possible to limit the scope of punishment following the former cases and theories even for the action that is causal and facilitates the principal's criminal conduct, like the aid through the neutral action which is hard to perceive as illegal aid because of its characteristics. Therefore, using the case of Soribada in Korea and the case of Winny in Japan as the examples of illegal aid through neutral behavior case, this paper examines the characteristics and problems of aid through existing theories and cases, and suggests new scope of punishment limitation standard through the elaboration of the action of aid and judgment of degree.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.57-87
• /
• 2009

Sick House Syndrome(SHS) is the environmental health problem which is difficult to clarify a causal relationship and a responsibility. This paper is focused on a National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission(NEDRC)'s judgment on SHS and the process of the change of knowledge and policies related to SHS. In the process of the resolving the SHS dispute, NEDRC functioned as a boundary organization, which helps stabilize the boundary between science and policy, and provides space of mutual collaboration and produces boundary objects. NEDRC had necessary characteristics and resources to make scientific knowledge and policies of SHS. First, it was important for SHS to define a problem clearly and to justify the related information whereupon legal authority was effective. In addition, for the procedure of deciding polities, the role of the Ministry of Environment(ME) was essential. However, due to the condition of ME, the discussion of SHS had been limited to the scope of dispute, excluding scientific discussion.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.172-181
• /
• 2020

This study examines the fact-check coverage provided by the SNU fact-check center site(factcheck.snu.ac.kr). A total of 50 articles that were cross-checked by multiple news media organizations were analyzed. The study's variables were topics, types, characteristics, consistency of the news media organizations' judgement, and fact-check sources. This study found that fact-checking coverage was generally focused on presidential or general election candidates or politicians, as well as political topics. The types of fact-checking coverage primarily included factual information, as well as some opinions or interpretations. Fact-check coverage was mainly focused on the facts of the statements themselves, causal relationships, or the timing or target of the comparison criteria. On average, the fact-checking coverage most frequently assigned the judgment 'mostly false, and primarily used interviews of individuals or data from organizations involved in the issue, government data, and experts' statements as the bases for its fact-checking judgements.