흠흠신서를 통해 본 다산의 형벌사상
Penological thought of Dasan through the 『Heumheumsinseo』
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Dasan Jung Yak Yong’s thought of criminal law can be understood based on 『Heumheumsinseo』, which refused the existing framework regarding the criminal law. In other words, the book tried to integrate and classify the criminal cases based on precedents. His research focused on not just introduction of the law, but also on a critical analysis of the criminal cases. As his criminal justice theory and criminal policy theory were created by classifying a study of court’s precedents, they could be considered precious guidelines on the criminal law at that time. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to compare the criminal justice theory included in 『Heumheumsinseo』 with the current criminal law system of Korea, and to prove that Dasan’s thoughts on the criminal law and punishment never fall behind the current penological theory applied to the Korean society. For example, in order to mitigate punishment, the Discretionary Mitigation tried to set up standards with the consideration of all the situations, and put substantive truth on the top of its priority. The discretionary mitigation has something in common with the principle of subsidiarity in the criminal law and ultima ration because it tried to protect people from getting severe punishment based on the thought of Heumhyul. For Dasan, the purpose of legislation on punishment was to reduce the number of people who are punished and at the same time to develop and establish education of public morals. In the end, the ultimate purpose is to correct criminals rather than to punish them through intimidation. In other words, he wanted to build utopian society where the morality is more valuable than others. When it comes to punishment execution, Dasan thought of as a mediator between heaven and the people. That’s why Dasan wanted to place a strict limit on the person who wields punishment power. According to this thought, he strictly criticized corrupt Mokmingwan at that time and emphasized impartial judgment by the law. Furthermore, he underlined the executors’ transparency in punishment by reforming penal system. In this regard, Dasan’s thoughts of the criminal law are in line with today’s criminal theories in Korea. more over. More importantly, his thoughts give us numerous lessons and precious values.
Abstract
Dasan Jung Yak Yong’s thought of criminal law can be understood based on 『Heumheumsinseo』, which refused the existing framework regarding the criminal law. In other words, the book tried to integrate and classify the criminal cases based on precedents. His research focused on not just introduction of the law, but also on a critical analysis of the criminal cases. As his criminal justice theory and criminal policy theory were created by classifying a study of court’s precedents, they could be considered precious guidelines on the criminal law at that time. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to compare the criminal justice theory included in 『Heumheumsinseo』 with the current criminal law system of Korea, and to prove that Dasan’s thoughts on the criminal law and punishment never fall behind the current penological theory applied to the Korean society. For example, in order to mitigate punishment, the Discretionary Mitigation tried to set up standards with the consideration of all the situations, and put substantive truth on the top of its priority. The discretionary mitigation has something in common with the principle of subsidiarity in the criminal law and ultima ration because it tried to protect people from getting severe punishment based on the thought of Heumhyul. For Dasan, the purpose of legislation on punishment was to reduce the number of people who are punished and at the same time to develop and establish education of public morals. In the end, the ultimate purpose is to correct criminals rather than to punish them through intimidation. In other words, he wanted to build utopian society where the morality is more valuable than others. When it comes to punishment execution, Dasan thought of as a mediator between heaven and the people. That’s why Dasan wanted to place a strict limit on the person who wields punishment power. According to this thought, he strictly criticized corrupt Mokmingwan at that time and emphasized impartial judgment by the law. Furthermore, he underlined the executors’ transparency in punishment by reforming penal system. In this regard, Dasan’s thoughts of the criminal law are in line with today’s criminal theories in Korea. more over. More importantly, his thoughts give us numerous lessons and precious values.
참고문헌 (63)
- 김상홍, "다산학의 신조명(2010 문화체육관광부 우수학술도서 선정)" (2009), 단국대학교 출판부
- 김일수, "법․인간․인권-법의 인간화를 위한 변론" (1999), 박영사
- 김일수, "한국형법Ⅰ" (1996), 박영사
- 서보학, "형법총론" (2008), 박영사
- 박병호, "근세의 법과 법사상" (1996), 도서출판 진원
- 박병호, "한국의 전통사회와 법" (2004), 서울대학교 출판부
- 박석무, "역주 흠흠신서(원문)" (1999), 현대실학사
- 배종대, "형법총론" (2013), 홍문사
- 배종대, "형사정책" (2011), 홍문사
- 심재우, "형사법강좌Ⅱ" (1984), 박영사
- 김나경, "의료법강의" (2009), 법문사
- 전재경, "복수와 형벌의 사회사" (1996), 웅진출판
- 정 민, "다산선생 지식경영법" (2007), 김영사
- 정일균, "한국사회사상사연구" (2003), 나남출판
- 차용석, "형벌권 남용으로부터의 자유-형사법의 좌표를 찾아서-" (1993), 교육과학사
- 하태영, "형사철학과 형사정책 : 형법학의 새로운 길" (2007), 法文社
- 노이만·슈로트, "형사정책의 새로운 이해" (1998), 홍문사
- 마이클 샌델, "정의란 무엇인가" (2010), 김영사
- 베르너 마이호퍼, "법치국가와 인간의 존엄" (1996), 삼영사
- 빈프리트 하세머, "범죄와 형벌" (2009), 나남
- 윤재왕, "안전사회" (2012), 한국형사정책연구원
- Heike Jung, "Was ist Strafe?" (2002), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft
- Tatjana Hörnle, "Straftheorien" (2011), Mohr Siebeck
- 강정훈, "정약용의 형정사상 연구 : 『흠흠신서』에 대한 윤리문화적 이해를 중심으로", 박사, 국민윤리학, pp.2008
- 고비환, "선정적 범죄보도가 중형주의에 미치는 영향과 그 완화책으로서 사회적 관용의 필요성", 법학논총, 32(2), pp.399~424 (2012), 법학연구소
- 김선택, "사형제도의 헌법적 문제점 –사형의 위헌성과 대체형벌-", 고려법학, (44) (2005)
- 김성수, "교정과 목민심서 : 현대형사사법에의 시사점", 교정담론, (2) (2008)
- 김진혁, "茶山 丁若鏞의 刑事司法觀과 刑事政策的 示唆點", 인문논총, 25, pp.111~142 (2010), 인문과학연구소
- 朴達鉉, "刑法上 補充性原則에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.1997
- 박종목, "茶山 實學의 社會改革論과 民本主意 法思想", 박사, 법학과, pp.2012
- 배종대, "세종의 형법사상", 고려법학, (59), pp.201~262 (2010), 법학연구원
- 배종대, "세종의 호학(好學)", 고려법학, (52), pp.1~39 (2009), 법학연구원
- 배종대, "우리 법학의 나아갈 길 : 형법학을 중심으로", 법과 사회, (창간) (1989)
- 배종대, "한국 형사제재의 주요 쟁점, 비교형사법연구", 제6권 제2호, 6(2) (2004)
- 배종대, "형벌의 의미", 고시연구, 200 (1990)
- 배종대, "형법과 보안처분에 있어서 재사회화 목적의 문제점", 고시연구, 140 (1985)
- 심재우, "인간의 존엄과 법질서–특히 칸트의 질서사상을 중심으로-", 법률행정논집, 12 (1974)
- 심재우, "인간의 존엄과 사형폐지론", 법학논집, 34 (1998)
- 심재우, "형벌권의 한계", 고시연구 (1978)
- 심희기, "조선후기의 형사제도운영에 대한 일고찰-參酌減律을 중심으로-", 석사, pp.1982
- 심희기, "흠흠신서의 법학사적 해부", 사회과학연구, 5(2) (1985)
- 안나현, "과잉형벌의 시대와 형벌이론의 역할", 박사, 법학과, pp.2013
- 윤재왕, "형벌과 도덕 - 칸트와 예방이론", 안암법학, (40), pp.519~558 (2013), 안암법학회
- 이기봉, "다산 정약용의 형률론과 형정론 : 『흠흠신서』 판례 분석을 중심으로", 석사, 사학, pp.2009
- 이덕인, "사형제도의 정당성에 대한 비판적 검토", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.277~300 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 이원택, "정약용의 복수에 대한 인식과 친 관념–흠흠신서 경사요의를 중심으로-", 법제연구, (20) (2001)
- 이정훈, "흠흠신서(欽欽新書)를 통해 본 정약용(丁若鏞)의 양형(量刑)론", 성균관법학, 20(3), pp.755~773 (2008), 법학연구소
- 이종일, "정다산과 흠흠신서", 다산학, (20) (2012)
- 정긍식, "참작감률을 통해 본 다산의 법인식", 다산학, (4) (2003)
- 강정훈, "정약용의 형정사상 연구 : 『흠흠신서』에 대한 윤리문화적 이해를 중심으로", 박사, 국민윤리학, pp.2008
- 정승환, "사형제도 존폐에 관한 토론문", 한국인권사회복지학회, 춘계학술대회 (2008)
- 정원수, "다산 정약용의 행형(교정)사상 연구 : 흠흠신서를 중심으로", 석사, 법무행정전공, pp.2012
- 조국, "사형폐지 소론", 형사정책, 20(1), pp.301~323 (2008), 한국형사정책학회
- 조균석, "『 흠흠신서 』에 수록된 조선시대 과실살 사례의 고찰", 다산학, (20), pp.77~111 (2012), 재단법인다산학술문화재단
- 조성을, "정약용의 형정관", 학림, 23 (2002)
- 진계호, "형벌의 본질론에 대한 연구", 법학연구, 7 (2001), 한국법학회
- 진희권, "조선시대의 형벌사상", 안암법학, 11 (2000)
- 하태영, "다산 정약용의 형사철학과 형사정책", 동아법학, (21) (1996)
- 한인섭, "사형제도의 문제와 개선방안", 형사정책, (5) (1990)
- 허일태, "死刑의 觀念에 관하여", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.455~474 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 허일태, "현행법상 작량감경제도의 문제점과 개선방안", 형사법연구, 22(2), pp.281~304 (2010), 한국형사법학회
- 洪丞希, "적극적 일반예방이론에 관한 연구", 석사, 법학, pp.1998
- 홍영기, "국가권력의 한계, 어디에서 비롯되는가", 법철학연구, 8(1), pp.199~232 (2005), 한국법철학회