본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

대명률의 죄형법정주의 원칙

A Study on the Principle of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" in the Great Ming Code

1

조회

0

다운로드

24

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

In this paper, I researched the principle of “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” in the Great Ming Code[大明律] which was the general source of criminal laws in the Chosun dynasty. In strict meaning, this principle is a historical result of the modern western society. But it is a declaration of this principle that detailed crimes and their punishments were provided in laws and codes. In traditional China, this principle was a device to rule people equally prohibiting public officials’ arbitrary punitive authority. So people were protected indirectly by criminal laws. In traditional China, this principle was stipulated in the Tang Code[唐律] compiled in AD 653, and was maintained in the Great Ming Code promulgated in 1397. In the Great Ming Code, this principle was manifested in the next articles: Article 45 “Deciding Penalties in Accordance with Newly Promulgated Code[斷罪依新頒律]”, and Article 439 “Citing the Code and the Commandment in Deciding Penalties[斷罪引律令]”, Article 38 “Principles for Increasing and Reducing Punishment[加減罪例]”. And then in Section 28 Judgment and Imprisonment[斷獄] of the Great Ming Code, It was compelled for public officials to obey the laws, if they did not so, they were punished by laws. So this principle was observed firmly. But there were exceptions in this principle. They are as follows: Article 46 “Deciding Cases without Specific Articles[斷罪無正條]” which is an analogy in interpretation of criminal laws, and Article 409 “Violating the Commandment[違 令]” which is a punishment without noticing, Article 410 “Doing What Ought Not to Be Done[不應爲]” which is a customary punishment. In these points, it was argued that there was no this principle in the Great Ming Code. But considering particular constituent elements and understanding of crimes, this principle was maintained limitedly. After the 1894 Reformation, this principle based on the Great Ming Code was denied and the western principle was accepted in the Chosun dynasty. But in the Penal Code of the Imperial Korea[刑法大全] in 1904, the western principle was disappeared and the traditional principle was restored. The western principle was accepted by the Japanese Governor-General’s Decree about Criminal Rules[朝鮮刑 事令] in 1912.

Abstract

In this paper, I researched the principle of “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” in the Great Ming Code[大明律] which was the general source of criminal laws in the Chosun dynasty. In strict meaning, this principle is a historical result of the modern western society. But it is a declaration of this principle that detailed crimes and their punishments were provided in laws and codes. In traditional China, this principle was a device to rule people equally prohibiting public officials’ arbitrary punitive authority. So people were protected indirectly by criminal laws. In traditional China, this principle was stipulated in the Tang Code[唐律] compiled in AD 653, and was maintained in the Great Ming Code promulgated in 1397. In the Great Ming Code, this principle was manifested in the next articles: Article 45 “Deciding Penalties in Accordance with Newly Promulgated Code[斷罪依新頒律]”, and Article 439 “Citing the Code and the Commandment in Deciding Penalties[斷罪引律令]”, Article 38 “Principles for Increasing and Reducing Punishment[加減罪例]”. And then in Section 28 Judgment and Imprisonment[斷獄] of the Great Ming Code, It was compelled for public officials to obey the laws, if they did not so, they were punished by laws. So this principle was observed firmly. But there were exceptions in this principle. They are as follows: Article 46 “Deciding Cases without Specific Articles[斷罪無正條]” which is an analogy in interpretation of criminal laws, and Article 409 “Violating the Commandment[違 令]” which is a punishment without noticing, Article 410 “Doing What Ought Not to Be Done[不應爲]” which is a customary punishment. In these points, it was argued that there was no this principle in the Great Ming Code. But considering particular constituent elements and understanding of crimes, this principle was maintained limitedly. After the 1894 Reformation, this principle based on the Great Ming Code was denied and the western principle was accepted in the Chosun dynasty. But in the Penal Code of the Imperial Korea[刑法大全] in 1904, the western principle was disappeared and the traditional principle was restored. The western principle was accepted by the Japanese Governor-General’s Decree about Criminal Rules[朝鮮刑 事令] in 1912.

참고문헌 (36)

  1. 劉基天, "제25판", pp.44~46 (1984), 일조각
  2. 鄭榮錫, "刑法總論 제5전정판", pp.56~57 (1986), 법문사
  3. 신동운, "형법총론 제2판", pp.17~43 (2006), 법문사
  4. 이상돈, "죄형법정주의의 현대적 의의, In 법치국가와 형법", pp.150~152 (1998), 세창출판사
  5. 이영훈, "역사와 투쟁하는 지식인, In 대한민국 이야기", pp.66~ (2007), 기파랑
  6. 조지만, "조선시대 형사법 ―대명률과 국전―" (2007), 경인문화사
  7. 李喆洙, "大明律直解의 吏文解釋(1-3)", 16∼18 (1990), 인하대학교 인문과학연구소
  8. 박병호, "외국법의 계수와 법령용어", 法學論文集, 26(2) (2002), 중앙대학교 법학연구소
  9. 金秉駿, "後漢 法律家의 活動과 그 性格", 東洋史學硏究, 30 (1989), 동양사학회
  10. 김택민, "중국고대 형법 ―당제국의 형법 총칙―" (2002), 아카넷
  11. 仁井田陞, "中國法制史硏究: 刑法", pp.172~183 (1959), 岩波書店
  12. 滋賀秀三, "淸代中國の法と裁判", pp.74~ (1984), 創文社
  13. "唐律疏議"
  14. 任大熙, "譯註 唐律疏議-各 則(下)", 한국법제연구원, 3350~ (1998)
  15. 金鐸敏, "譯註 唐律疏議-名例編", pp.233~ (1994), 한국법제연구원
  16. 仁井田陞, "唐令拾遺補", pp.1434~ (1997), 東京大學出版會
  17. 任大熙, "譯註 唐律疏議-各則(下)", pp.3276~
  18. 徐益初, "現代中國刑事法論" (1992), 法律文化社
  19. 張國華, "중국법률사상사" (2003), 아카넷
  20. 張晉藩, "중국법제사" (2006), 소나무
  21. 張晉藩, "中國法制通史(전10책)" (1999), 法律出版社
  22. 鄭肯植, "大明律 解題, In 大明律講解", pp.8~11 (2001), 서울대학교 규장각
  23. 김지수, "受敎와 條例의 法的 性格과 理念, In 전통법과 광주반정", pp.19~ (2006), 전남대학교 출판부
  24. 中村茂夫, "제2장 비부의 기능, in 판례를 통해서 본 청대 형법" (2004), 서경문화사
  25. “凡共犯罪者 以造意爲首 隨從者 減一等”,
  26. 金池洙, "전통법의 民事賠償 책임, In 전통법과 광주반정", pp.327~330 (2006), 전남대학교 출판부
  27. 鄭肯植, "韓國近代法史攷", pp.148~159 (2002), 박영사
  28. 文竣暎, "大韓帝國期 刑法大全의 制定과 改正", 法史學硏究, 20, pp.42~43 (1999), 한국법사학회
  29. 文竣暎, "≪刑法草≫(天)", 法史學硏究, 19, pp.183~184 (1998), 한국법사학회
  30. 文竣暎, "大韓帝國期 ≪刑法大全≫의 制定에 관한 硏究", 석사, 법학, pp.1998
  31. 張燾, "新舊刑事法規大全卷下(磚洞 普成社 印刷)", pp.331~420
  32. 牧野英一, "刑法總論, In 新法律學全集 23", pp.78~ (1937), 日本評論社
  33. "1912. 1. 20 판결 明治 44년 형상 제162호 및 1916. 6. 19 판결 大正 5년 형상 제56호" (1912)[URL]
  34. 정긍식, "현행 법률용어에 대한 역사적 고찰, 법률용어정비사업 제2차 전문가회의자료집" (2002), 한국법제연구원
  35. 김도균, "근대 법치주의의 사상적 기초 : 권력제한, 권리보호, 민주주의 실현, In 법치주의의 기초 : 이념과 역사", pp.9~ (2006), 서울대학교 출판부
  36. 정긍식, "법서의 출판과 보급으로 본 조선사회의 법적 성격", 서울대학교 법학, 48(4), pp.88~123 (2007), 법학연구소

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)