한국과 일본의 형벌문신에 대한 역사와 사회․문화․법제도적 측면에 대한 비교 연구

Abstract

The Historical, social, cultural, legal and systematic recognitions of tattoos are different in each country. Therefore, it is true that Japan and Korea have some common points and big differences in developments and recognition processes. In this context, this research is aimed at conducting discussions on the origin of tattoo practices, the history of changes in tattoo punishments which are controlled by the state, the traditions of private tattoos, social and cultural recognitions and change processes of tattoos, and laws and systems for those having tattoo marks and for new employment of police officers in Japan and Korea. The cores of this research include the following. First, from social and cultural viewpoints in Japan and Korea, tattoo practices had been prevalent before ancient times and been handed down secretly to the modern times in spite of prohibitions by the state. After that, since the 7th century when the Confucian view of the body was introduced into the countries from China, tattoo was converted into tattoo punishment in Japan and extant historical evidence shows that tattoo began to be used in Korea from the Goryeo Dynasty. Consequently, a negative view of those having tattoo marks started in the 7th century in Japan and the Goryeo Dynasty in Korea where a Confucian view of the body was firmly recognized and established during the Chosun Dynasty. Today, it is to be noted that, unlike the existing generations, new generations have a more flexible and acceptable view of tattoos in both countries. Second, from legal and systematic perspectives in both countries, tattoo had frequently functioned and utilized as a punishment and stigma. Yet today, no country uses tattoo as a punishment. However, applicants for police offices are considered with a focus on those having tattoo marks in both countries, in order to know whether the country ever has regulations or discriminatory policies similar to tattoo punishments today. In Japan, it is commonly recognized that those having tattoo marks should be naturally excluded from employment or screening processes. In contrast, in Korea, a plan to apply tattoo restriction criteria to the employment of policemen has been implemented since 2007 according to a correction recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission in 2005. It implies that regulations on those having tattoo marks are much stronger when new police officers are employed in Japan rather in Korea. Lastly, now it seems to be necessary for us to hammer out schemes for more flexibly responding to social and cultural trends from the perspective of criminal policies in relation to the pending issue, from what viewpoints tattoo cultures should be considered.