朝鮮前期 刑罰의 目的: 大明律 刑律의 分析을 中心으로
The purpose of criminal punishment in Choseon Dynasty
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Taminglu(大明律) performed a significant role as a source of criminal law in trials of Choseon dynasty. However, the argument that Taminglu was a general criminal law in Choseon distorted historical evidences. This unswerving stance that was not recognized the fallacy insisted that Taminglu held the status as general criminal law like modern Korean criminal code in Choseon dynasty. This distortion derived from the deficiency of analysis and review on the historical documents. Also, it maintained that even if Tanglu(唐律) often provided legal reasons for King Sejong (and including other Kings) and high-ranking government officials to judge Tanglu was not valid law. Nevertheless, in Choseon dynasty, not only Tanglu but even confucian scriptures that were not recognized as legal codes, such as the canon of history(書經) and the book of odes(詩經) were the source of law. The confucian scriptures afforded reasons in legal reasoning to the judicial officers as the legal principles. In particular, Kings and officers quoted provisions and interpretation from Tanglu in legal reasoning until the 17th century. In this respect, the argument Tanglu was not the current law at that time is definitely wrong. And The doctrine Taminglu was the general criminal code of Choseon perverted the truth on the legal system and criminal law during the early days of the Choseon dynasty. King’s laws(受敎) were based on the royal commands which had been reviewed by the officials as an inspector held the core legal status of legal system in Choseon. And legislator and Judicial officials who applied rules were undifferentiated at that time. In this respect, the consultative group King and high-ranking government officials constituted had the power of the legislature and the judicature. Therefore, King’s law(受敎) played a leading role in the trials. Taminglu was one of the main and important legal sources. Criminal justice of choseon was based on the philosophical purpose of criminal punishment and it was the confucian edification. Criminal codes of ancient east asia, such as Tanglu, Taminglu, and the king’s laws(受敎) were enacted by philosophical purpose and the laws were interpreted by the philosophical purpose. Thus, understanding the context of history of philosophy is most important thing to explain about criminal justice and legal history in ancient Korea. Without understanding of history of philosophy, nobody comments exactly the legal history and criminal justice of Choseon. Legal system was designed and worked according as government(were not divided into three parties, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judicature) should pursue the confucian telos of nation. Therefore, I demonstrated criminal law and criminal justice of Choseon dynasty from the standpoint of confucian purpose, that is, the edification. This research reviewed not only the legal status and role of criminal codes, such as Taminglu, but the codes and criminal justice of Choseon were based on the confucian purpose of criminal punishment, namely, ‘edification’(敎化).
Abstract
Taminglu(大明律) performed a significant role as a source of criminal law in trials of Choseon dynasty. However, the argument that Taminglu was a general criminal law in Choseon distorted historical evidences. This unswerving stance that was not recognized the fallacy insisted that Taminglu held the status as general criminal law like modern Korean criminal code in Choseon dynasty. This distortion derived from the deficiency of analysis and review on the historical documents. Also, it maintained that even if Tanglu(唐律) often provided legal reasons for King Sejong (and including other Kings) and high-ranking government officials to judge Tanglu was not valid law. Nevertheless, in Choseon dynasty, not only Tanglu but even confucian scriptures that were not recognized as legal codes, such as the canon of history(書經) and the book of odes(詩經) were the source of law. The confucian scriptures afforded reasons in legal reasoning to the judicial officers as the legal principles. In particular, Kings and officers quoted provisions and interpretation from Tanglu in legal reasoning until the 17th century. In this respect, the argument Tanglu was not the current law at that time is definitely wrong. And The doctrine Taminglu was the general criminal code of Choseon perverted the truth on the legal system and criminal law during the early days of the Choseon dynasty. King’s laws(受敎) were based on the royal commands which had been reviewed by the officials as an inspector held the core legal status of legal system in Choseon. And legislator and Judicial officials who applied rules were undifferentiated at that time. In this respect, the consultative group King and high-ranking government officials constituted had the power of the legislature and the judicature. Therefore, King’s law(受敎) played a leading role in the trials. Taminglu was one of the main and important legal sources. Criminal justice of choseon was based on the philosophical purpose of criminal punishment and it was the confucian edification. Criminal codes of ancient east asia, such as Tanglu, Taminglu, and the king’s laws(受敎) were enacted by philosophical purpose and the laws were interpreted by the philosophical purpose. Thus, understanding the context of history of philosophy is most important thing to explain about criminal justice and legal history in ancient Korea. Without understanding of history of philosophy, nobody comments exactly the legal history and criminal justice of Choseon. Legal system was designed and worked according as government(were not divided into three parties, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judicature) should pursue the confucian telos of nation. Therefore, I demonstrated criminal law and criminal justice of Choseon dynasty from the standpoint of confucian purpose, that is, the edification. This research reviewed not only the legal status and role of criminal codes, such as Taminglu, but the codes and criminal justice of Choseon were based on the confucian purpose of criminal punishment, namely, ‘edification’(敎化).
참고문헌 (21)
- 조지만, "조선시대의 형사법: 대명률과 국전" (2007), 경인문화사
- 조지만, "조선 초기 대명률의 수용과정", 법사학연구 (1999)
- 정긍식, "朝鮮 前期 『大明律』의 受容과 變容", 진단학보, (96), pp.205~242 (2003), 진단학회
- 정긍식, "대명률의 죄형법정주의 원칙", 서울대학교 법학, 49(1), pp.110~158 (2008), 법학연구소
- Kermit L. Hall, "Magic Mirror : Law In American History" (2008), OUP
- 서울대규장각영인, "大明律講解" (2001)
- 한국역사연구회 중세2분과 법전연구반, "受敎輯錄" (2001), 청년사
- 허준, "新對譯東醫寶鑑" (2007), 법인문화사
- 김성돈, "형법각론" (2009), 성균관대출판부
- 김성돈, "형법총론" (2009), 성균관대출판부
- 이상영, "법사상사" (2005), 한국방송통신대 출판부
- 정치학, "니코마코스 윤리학. in: 니코마코스윤리학", pp.동서문화사, 시학
- 이정훈, "포용적 법실증주의 법개념 연구: 조선시대 법개념 분석을 중심으로", 박사, pp.2008
- 법제처, "추관지(1)" (1975)
- 풍우란, "中國哲學史 下 (9쇄)" (2009), 까치글
- 張國華, "중국법률사상사" (2003), 아카넷
- 永田英正, "아시아 역사와 문화 1: 중국사 고대" (2003), 신서원
- 이승환, "사회규범의 공공성에 관한 법가의 인식(2). in: 동서철학의 공적 합리성" (2005), 철학과현실사
- 조남욱, "조선조 유교정치문화" (2008), 성균관대출판부
- 로저 제임스, "동양철학, 그 삶과 창조성" (2005), 성균관대출판부
- 이정훈, "朝鮮時代 儒敎的 法治(the rule of law)의 法解釋論", 동양정치사상사, 6(2), pp.153~170 (2007), 한국[DOI]
