조선후기 왜관 통제와 교간사건의 처리 - 1859년 교간사건을 중심으로 -

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the prostitution case on how the case was handled according to the criminal punishment regulation in a treaty between Joseon and Japan din which a Japanese criminal who was found prostitution with a woman of Joseon at Waegwan(倭館) and was repatriated to Tsushima Domain(對馬藩), and also to examine the awareness of prostitution case both in Joseon and in Japan and the response to such case. The results are as follows. In the later period of Joseon, when prostitution was found by a Japanese person who brought a Joseon woman to Waegwan for prostitution, the authority of Joseon had extremely strict punishment policy to the persons directly related and also person indirectly related such as beheading or banishment. However, the punishment to the Japanese was not severe from Japan. Since the conclusion of Gyogan Agreement(交奸約條) signed in 1711 between Shinmyo Tongshinsa(辛卯通信使) and the governor of Tsushima Domain that regulated punishment of prostitution at Waegwan by different levels such as rape and fornication, the punishment against Japanese people was strengthened. The Japanese under prostitution was repatriated to Tsushima Doman and was punished under the Agreement. In 1859 prostitution case, Kim Yongok(金用玉), the main culprit among Joseon people was beheaded at the gate of Choryang Waegwan(草梁倭館), and Yi Munju(李文周) was banished. Jo Geumhung(趙錦紅) was punished with flog for 100 times and then banished. Japanese Tojiro(藤次郞) and Giichiro(喜一郞) were confined from Waegwan and repatriated to Tsushima through patrol vessel. Punishment to these two Japanese was finalized after investigation and interrogation of Tahoisuda ordered by Tsushima Domain and on the approval of the governor of Tsushima Domain on the punishment of prostitution criminal on September 21. They were deported from Hutsua (府中, 嚴源) from their residents and was sentenced for life labor sentence at a region for their life time It demonstrates that punishment of Japan on the crimes were not insignificant such as ‘confinement in Waegwan(倭館 禁足令)’ or ‘repatriation to Tsushima’. In addition, the operation of Waegwan was carried out according to the agreement. As a result, the Waegwan policy of the Joseon Government which was to ‘control Japanese’ was maintained constantly as planned initially. Despite the agreed punishment regulation on prostitution between the two countries, there were considerable differences in the perspective on prostitution case. While Joseon required the equal punishment to the Japanese with the men of Joseon and required stricter punishment than the Shinmyo Agreement(辛卯約條), the interrogation on the Japanese focused on the source of money that was paid by the exchange of prostitution. It indicates that they more focused on smuggling at Waegwan which shows that smuggling was more severely punished than prostitution as it may have adverse effect on the finance of Tsushima Domain. Such different perspective on prostitution case was not only because of difference of cultural and social value but also was highly related to see how to view Waegwan – whether it could be seen ‘place of control or diplomacy’ or ‘place of trade’