朝鮮後期

韓相權(Han Sang-gweon) 역사학회 1987 역사학보 Vol.116 No.-

1920년대 여성해방론

한상권(Han Sang-Kwon) 한국사학회 2007 史學硏究 Vol.- No.87

1920년대 문화운동의 기본 정신은 개인의 인격과 자유, 평등이었다. 그 결과 여성을 가부장제의 억압으로부터 해방시켜 남성과 동등한 인격적 지위에 올라갈 수 있도록 개조해야 한다는 흐름이 형성되었다. 여성의 개성과 인격을 존중하는 사회분위기에 힘입어 조선 최초의 단발여성이 출현하였다. 여성해방의 상징인 단발은 사회주의 사상의 영향 하에 이루어졌다. 조선최초의 ‘斷髮娘은 기생 강향란이었으며, 이후로도 사회적으로 천대받는 기생들이 단발운동에 앞장섰다. 1920년대 중반에 이르러 허정숙을 중심으로 사회주의여성들이 단발을 감행하고 단발의 정당성을 이론화하는 작업에 나섰다. 또한 자유주의 여성들도 생활개선이라는 합리적ㆍ실용적 관점에서 단발의 필요성을 제기하였는데, 그 중심인물이 김(차)미리사였다. 1920년대 후반에 단발을 감행한 이들은 ‘모던 걸’이라 불리우는 신여성들이었다. 반면 사회주의 여성들은 장발로 복귀하였다. 단발이 대중성 확보에 실패했다고 보고 입장을 선회한 것이다. 그 결과 단발은 합리성을 중시하는 자유주의여성들의 옹호만 받게 되었다. 1920년대 여성해방운동의 일환으로 시작된 단발이 단순한 여성들의 헤어스타일로 정착된 것은 1930년대 중ㆍ후반에 이르러서였다. The fundamental spirit of the cultural movement in the 1920s was born out of a respect for individuality, freedom and equality. It gave rise to a movement that women should be released from the oppression of a patriarchal system and educated in a way to allow them to enjoy the same status with man. Owing much to the social atmosphere respecting women’s individual character and personality, the ‘bobbed hair girls’ appeared for the first time in the history of Korea. The Kisaeng (entertainment women) who were subject to social discrimination but were socially more active than ordinary women, took the lead in cutting their hair, changing from the traditional uniform chignon style to western style cuts. By late 1925, socialist women led by Huh Jeong-suk began to work on theories justifying ‘cutting hair short’. Women Liberalists as well claimed the advantages of cutting hair short, noting the particular convenience and practicality, both elements for living conditions improvements. Kim(Cha) Melisa was a central figure of movement. Those new women who dared cut their hair in the late 1920s were called ‘modern girls’. On the other hand, socialist women went back to the traditional chignon style. They changed their attitude, believing that ‘cutting hair short’ failed to gain public sympathizers. As a result, only the women liberals advocating rationality remained as the only group supporting ‘cutting hair short’.

조선시대 소원제도의 (訴寃制度) 발달과정

한상권 ( Sang Kwon Han ) 일지사 1993 韓國學報 Vol.19 No.4

4월 혁명과 여성 참여 - 2·28대구학생시위로부터 4·11민주항쟁까지를 중심으로 -

한상권 ( Han Sang-kwon ) 한국여성사학회 2020 여성과 역사 Vol.0 No.33

4월 혁명의 직접적인 발단은 학원의 정치도구화에 반대하는 2·28대구학 생시위였다. 2월 28일 대구학생시위는 경북고와 대구고 등 남자고등학생이 주축이 되어 시작됐다. 하지만 서너 시간 뒤 경북여고와 대구여고 등 여자고등학생도 시위를 벌였다. 그리고 3·15의거를 계기로 여중생도 4월 혁명에 참여하기 시작했다. 4월 혁명의 중심에 여고생과 여중생 그리고 일반여성이 있었다는 사실은 기존의 남성 중심의 4월 혁명 이해에서 대단히 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 2·28대구학생시위로부터 3·15의거를 거쳐 4·11민주항쟁에 이르기까지 4월 혁명에 참여한 여성을 여학생과 일반 여성 두 부류로 나누어 그들의 참여 양상과 활약상을 검토한다. The direct trigger of the April Revolution was the February 28th Dae-gu High School Student Demonstration against the political tooling of private educational institutes. The protest began on February 28 with male high school students of Kyungbuk High School and Daegu High School, and after three or four hours, female high school students of Kyungbuk Girls' High School and Daegu Girls' High School also joined. The fact that high school girls, middle school girls, and adult women were at the center of the April Revolution has great significance when it comes to previous understanding that the April Revolution was driven by males. From the February 28th Daegu High School Student Demonstration to the March 15th Uprising and the April 11th Democracy Movement, this article will explore the participation and acts of the women who participated in the April Revolution by dividing into two groups: students and adult women.

公罪와 私罪

한상권(Han, Sang Kwon) 한국법사학회 2016 法史學硏究 Vol.53 No.-

중국과 한국의 전통 법은 범죄를 公罪와 私罪로 구분하였다. 공죄란 관리가 공무를 처리하는 과정에서 私利를 추구하지 않으면서 범하는 실수나 착오를 말한다. 관리가 범하는 錯誤性 犯罪가 공죄인 것이다. 반면 사죄란 일반인이 私益을 추구하는 과정에서 저지른 故意性 犯罪를 말한다. 그리고 관리라 할지라도 공무를 빙자하여 私利를 추구하면 역시 公罪가 아닌 私罪를 짓는 것이 된다. 현대의 형법에서는 범죄를 “형벌을 과할 필요 있는 불법일 것을 요하며, 그것은 사회적 유해성 내지 법익을 침해하는 반사회적 행위를 의미한다.”라고 해석하고 있는데, 사죄가 이에 해당한다. 중국사회에서 관리범죄를 공죄와 사죄로 나누는 구분은 이미 漢代에 있었으며, 西晉 시대에 이르러 법률상 공죄와 사죄를 구분하는 기본원칙이 확립되었다. 唐律은 이전 시대의 입법 경험을 종합하여 공죄와 사죄의 구분을 명확히 하였다. 그리고 明代에 이르러 공죄와 사죄의 처벌원칙과 처벌방식 등이 구체적으로 정비되었는데, 大明律의 文武官犯公罪와 文武官犯私罪 조항이 그것이다. 공죄와 사죄를 구분하는 기준은 객관적 범죄행위가 아니라 주관적 범행동기에 있다. 이는 공죄와 사죄의 法源이 주관주의적 법해석에 바탕을 둔 것임을 말해준다. 공죄와 사죄의 구분은 범죄와 형벌이 서로 상응하지 않는 罪刑不一致의 문제점을 낳게 마련이었다. 똑같은 범죄를 두고 어떤 관리는 사죄로 무겁게 다스리고 다른 관리는 공죄로 가볍게 처벌하면 법 적용이 불공평하다는 문제점이 제기될 수밖에 없는 것이다. 한편 근대사회에 이르러 신분제가 폐지되고 四民萬民平等이 이루어짐에 따라, 신분범죄인 公罪는 행정법체계 속으로 흡수되고, 나머지 모든 범죄는 私罪로 통일되어 형법체계 속으로 흡수되었다. In Chinese traditional society, crime was divided into the public crime and private crime. This classification had been existed since Han era (漢代), and the Dang Code(唐律) clarified the division reflecting the legislations in the previous era. Subsequently, the principle and the way of criminal punishment concretely systemized during the Ming Dynasty. The major criteria of the classification between public crime and private crime is a subjective criminal motive, not an objective commission of criminal conduct. This indicates the source of both public crime and private crime is based on the subjective interpretation of the law. However, this standard of classification tended to cause the discrepancy between crime and actual punishment. After abolishment of the social hierarchy and accomplishment of the equality, the public crime which was sonderdelikt disappeared that all categories of crime started to be regarded as private crime. Therefore, the administrative law regulated the public crime, and the criminal law regulated the private crime.

백성과 소통한 군주, 정조

한상권(Han Sang Kweon) 역사비평사 2009 역사비평 Vol.- No.89

Jeongjo primarily agreed with the Sarim figures’ argument of Confucian governing, which dictated that a king should be well versed in the teachings of the ancient sage kings, but he also believed that the person who should be held ultimately responsible for the job, was the king. Without a doubt he accepted the political ideology of Confucianism, yet he wanted to overcome the existing format of Confucian governing which was designed not with the king but the vassals at the center. He intended to design his future governing, with him at the very center. In the latter half of the Joseon dynasty, Sangeon and Gyeokjaeng appeals continued to grow in number and also escalate in their general tone of frustration, so Jeongjo ordered that making Gyeokjaeng appeals should be permitted alongside the royal guards(衛外擊錚). And he also allowed civilian lawsuits(民訴, essentially Sangeon and Gyeokjaeng procedures) to be filed for the so-called ‘Mineun(民隱)’ cases, which were caused by social and economic wrong doings of the powerful beings. By communicating with his subjects, Jeongjo wanted to make a community where all people could live peacefully together. And his efforts continued in two terms: first, viewing the capital and the local regions equally(一視京外), in order to diminish regional discrimination, and second, taking from the top people to support the lower ones(損上益下). These were the conclusions Jeongjo drew from his own reasoning and actions.

조선시대 소송과 외지부(外知部)

한상권(Han Sang-kwon) 한국역사연구회 2008 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.69

The 「Gyeongju-bu Gyeolsong Iban/慶州府決訟立案(the Gyeongju-bu Lawsuit Document)」, currently in custody of the Gyeongju Son House, is a document regarding a lawsuit which was initiated in 1560(l5th year of King Myeongjong's reign) over a nobi slave. In this document, offenses and defenses that were exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant, contents of the documentary evidence(書證) and the accounts of the witnesses, and all the legal debates that ensued, are documented in chronological order. This document also contains the final judgement of tile lawsuit. In that regard this lawsuit document is in perfect shape, and most importantly we can examine tile legal mind of the people at the time, who were determined to have their legal rights protected through a lawsuit, by examining this document. The lawsuit process of the Joseon dynasty period showed a minimized intervention on the pan of the authorities, and also the enlarged role of the parties directly involved. And because of such characteristics, tile involved parties were in need of some professional help from legal practitioners. And for those who were in need of such help, the Waeji-bu/外知部 entities were the ones to consult. At the request of the clients, Waeji-bu entities listened to the nature of the complaints and created written accusations for the client, or provided the clients with advices regarding the actual lawsuit process and related techniques. When they were hired as legal representatives of the clients, they appeared at the local office and initiated a lawsuit for them, and whenever they won the suit, they were compensated by tile clients as well. Yet consigning lawsuits to a representative(雇用代訟) was banned in August 1478(9th year of King Seongiong's reign), and Waeji-bu practices were punished by household relocation to border areas(全家徒邊). As a result, Waeji-bu entities did not appear officially in lawsuits that were launched since the 16th century, yet through several traces we can see that they remained in service.

일제강점기 차미리사의 민족교육운동

한상권(Han Sang-Kwon) 독립기념관 한국독립운동연구소 2001 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.16 No.-

16 17세기 향약의 (鄕約) 기구와 성격

한상권 ( Sang Gwon Han ) 진단학회 1984 진단학보 Vol.- No.58

대명률 위핍치사(威逼致死)의 법리와 조선에서의 적용

한상권(Han, Sang Kweon) 한국법사학회 2014 法史學硏究 Vol.50 No.-

당률의 인명사건(人命事件)은 모살(謀殺), 고살(故殺), 투살(鬪殺), 희살(戱殺), 오살(誤殺), 과실치사(過失致死) 등 육살(六殺)이다. 반면 명률에서는 겁살(劫殺)인 위핍치사(威逼致死)가 추가되어 칠살(七殺)이 되었다.『대명률』은 간음으로 인한 위핍치사인 인간치사(因姦致死)를 결과적가중범(結果的加重犯)으로 간주하여 극형인 참형으로 처벌하였다. 반면 조선에서는 검안(檢案)에 위핍치사의 범인을 정범(正犯)이 아닌 피고(被告)로 현록(懸錄)하고 유아지율(由我之律)로 처벌하였는데, 이는 행위의 결과귀속(結果歸屬)을 엄격히 하려는 것이었다. The charge of perpetrating a persecution that leads to one’s death(“Wipib Chisa, 威逼致死”) appears for the first time in the Great Ming Code(“大明律”). In the Ming Code, such perpetration occurred in the process of adultery was defined as a consequently aggravated crime(結果的加重犯), and as a crime punishable by execution by beheading. On the other hand, the Joseon court recorded in the case reports(檢案) the offender as not the main culprit(正犯) but the defendant(被告), and punished the person with rules applied to self-generated[imposed] aggravations(由我之律). This was a demonstration of an attention to clarify where the ultimate responsibility and implications fell upon(結果歸屬).