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.

일제강점기 차미리사의 민족교육운동

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

박태보의 자기비첩소생(自己婢妾所生)의 신분 귀속에 대 한 인식 - 「단송안(斷訟案)」을 중심으로 -

한상권 ( Han Sang-kwon ) 한국고문서학회 2021 古文書硏究 Vol.59 No.-

朴泰輔(1654∼1689)는 강원도 伊川縣監 시절인 1684년(숙종 10) ‘자기비첩 소생 論介를 放良한다’는 판결을 하였다. 이는 비첩소생이 보충대에 ‘入屬하면 從良’, ‘입속하지 않으면 私賤’이라는 현행법과 상치되는 판결이었다. 논개는 보충대에 입속하지 않았기 때문이다. 1554년(명종 9) 반포된 「甲寅受敎」는 嫡族이 비첩소생을 사역하는 것은 骨肉相殘으로 인륜상의 문제가 있다고 보아 사촌까지는 부리지 못하도록 하였다. 하지만 同氣라 할지라도 5촌을 넘으면 사역할 수 있다고 하였다. 박태보는 「갑인수교」가 骨肉의 사역을 허용했다는 점에서 人情에 배치되며 또한 『經國大典』의 ‘本意’와도 상충한다고 보아 논개를 종량 판결한 것이다. 박태보는 중앙 정계로 복귀한 뒤 筵中啓辭를 올려 법문 개정을 국왕에게 아뢰었다. 그 결과 1687년(숙종13) 「丁卯受敎」가 반포되어, 비첩소생이 보충대에 ‘入屬하면 從良’, ‘입속하지 않으면 公賤’으로 바뀌었다. 그리고 이 규정은 『續大典』에도 수록된다. In 1684, during the reign of King Suk-jong, Park Tae-bo (1654-1689) who was a prefect of Icheon(伊川) in Gangwon-do Province ruled that “Non-gae who is a slave’s concubine should be emancipated.” This was contradictory to the law at that time, which states that “if a salve could be a part of Bochungdae(補充隊) he may be emancipated, otherwise he should stay as private slave.” According to “Gapinsugyo(甲寅受敎)” which was announced in 1554 (the 9th year of King Myeongjong’s reign), noble class prohibited his cousin from serving as a slave because it was against human right. However, even if both are cousin, it was allowed the noble class to use his relatives as salve who are his cousin’s son or daughter. Park Tae-bo made a decision of releasing Non-gae given that “Gapinsugyo(甲寅受敎)” was not in accordance with human right as well as a spirit of “Gyeonggukjeon(經國大典)”. After his returning to the central political arena, Park Tae-bo appealed to the king to amend the law by reporting “Yeonjoonggyesa(筵中啓辭)”. As a result, “Jeongmyosugyo(丁卯受敎)” was declared in 1687(13th year of King Sukjong’s reign), which stated that “if a salve could be a part of Bochungdae he may be emancipated, otherwise he should stay as public slave.” This regulation is also included in “Sokdaejeon(續大典)”.

조선시대 사송(詞訟)재판의 두 양태 -해남윤씨가 소장 결송입안(決訟立案)을 중심으로-

한상권 ( Sang Kwon Han ) 한국고문서학회 2014 古文書硏究 Vol.44 No.-

조선시대 소송사례는 사적 소유권의식과 소유권이 침탈당하였을 경우, 소송과 재판을 통해 권리관계를 회복하려는 권리의식이 전통사회에서 존재하였음을 보여준다. 민사소송인 詞訟의 판결문인 決訟立案은 당시 사람들이 소송을 권리구제, 분쟁해결 수단으로 활용하였음을 보여주는 자료이다. 해남윤씨가 고문서자료 가운데 두 건의 決訟立案이 현전한다. 민사와 형사가 구분되어 詞訟이 진행된 재판양태를 보여주는 고문서자료인 「1716년 결송입안」(결송입안B)은 訟官인 해남현감이 당사자주의와 쌍방심리주의 원칙에 입각하여 객관적·중립적인 입장에서 소송을 지휘하고, 증거문기에 근거하여 판결을 내림으로써, ‘私權을 보호하고 이에 곁들여 사법질서의 유지와 분쟁의 해결에 이바지 한다’는 민사소송의 본래 목적에 충실하였음을 보여준다. 반면 민사와 형사가 병행된 형태로 詞訟이 진행된 재판양태를 보여주는 고문서자료인 「1686년 결송입안」(결송 입안A)은 해남현감이 피고와 증인에게 拷訊을 통해 자백을 받아내고 이를 바탕으로 판결을 하는 등 직권주의 방식으로 소송을 처리하였음을 보여준다. 전통시대는 법의 중심가치가 명분확립에 있었으므로 송사를 판결하는데도 시비곡직을 가리는 법률적 관점보다는 권선징악이라는 도덕적 관점이 우선시되었다. 법의 객관적이며 엄격한 적용을 보여주는 ‘결송입안B’의 재판양태보다는 예교상의 倫常을 기준으로 송사를 판단한 ‘결송입안A’의 재판양태가 훨씬 친숙한 것이었다. 그러나 근대로 들어오면서 신분제가 해체되고 평등사회가 도래하면서 형벌의 경중을 결정하는 기준이 신분관계에 따라 결정되어서는 안 되는 생각이 일반화되었다. 1895년 3월 이후 재판을 民事와 刑事로 구분하여 처리한다는 새로운 원칙이 수립됨에 따라 ‘결송입안B’에서 보여준 재판양태가 민사재판의 일반적인 형식으로 자리 잡게 되는 반면, ‘결송입안A’에서 보여준 재판양태는 역사에서 자취를 감추게 된다. The lawsuits in Joseon shows us that a consciousness of one`s own ownership rights, and the determination to protect it through trials when it was violated, indeed existed. Gyeol`song Ib`an(決訟立案) documents, the ruling documents for civil “Sa`song(詞訟)” lawsuits of the time, shows us that the Joseon people used suits and trials as a method to preserve one`s private rights, as well as to resolve a social conflict. There are two Gyeol`song Ib`an documents found from the collection of age old documents currently in custody of the Haenam Yun house archives, and they are examined in this article. <1716 Gyeol`song Ib`an(GI-B)>, which shows us that civil issues and penal issues were in some cases dealt with separately, in terms of lawsuit filing as well as ruling at the court, shows us that the Haenam prefect(Hyeon`gam) oversaw the trial from an objective and neutral position, based upon a principle of a system that might as well be considered to be the premodern counterpart to the present day`s adversary system and mutual hearing procedures. The document also lets us know that the prefect ruled the case based upon evidence material, fulfilling the spirit of civil lawsuits in general, which was to ‘protect private rights’ and ‘contribute to the resolution of social conflicts in order to uphold the law and order.’ On the other hand, <1686 Gyeol`song Ib`an(GI-A)>, which shows as that a lawsuit was from time to time proceeded on civil and penal fronts at the same time, also shows us that the Haenam prefect, at a different time and in a different trial, examined the defendant and witness in order to secure a confession, upon which he would base his ruling, in an “offizialprinzip” manner. In the premodern societies, the main value the law pursued was the establishment of a righteous ideal. In trials, a legal perspective dedicated to the determination of right or wrong was considered essentially secondary, while a moral perspective that would ensure the punishment of the evil and encouragement of the good was considered a priority. Instead of <GI-B>, which shows us the case of an objective and strict law enforcement, <GI-A>, which was based upon moral values(倫常), was the more familiar type 倫常of trial at the time. But coming into the modern period, equality among all people became the norm, and established was a principle that would not allow standard criteria determining the severity of the punishment to be based upon social classes and stratification. After March 1895, it was also established that civil trials and penal trials should be separated. <GI-B> types of trials became the norm, while <GI-A> trials faded into history.

16세기 여주이씨 노비소송과 의송(議送)

한상권 ( Sang Kwon Han ) 한국고문서학회 2016 古文書硏究 Vol.48 No.-

여주이씨 노비소송은 草溪에 사는 원고 固城李氏 李春壽와 慶州에 사는 피고 驪州李氏 李浚 형제가 1576년부터 1578년까지 벌인 노비소유권 다툼이다. 여주이씨 노비소송은 忠義衛 이춘수가 李浚이 據執하고 있는 도망 비 多勿沙里를 推給해줄 것을 청구하는 議送所志를 경상도관찰사에게 올림으로써 시작되었다. 여주이씨 노비소송의 당사자는 원고 이춘수와 피고 이준·이순형제이며, 소송의 목적물은 婢子 多勿沙里이고, 청구내용은 도망노비 추심인 것이다. 여주이씨 노비소송은 네 가지 쟁점을 둘러싸고 진행되었는데, 첫 번째 쟁점은 訴訟物인 一名 多勿沙里 一名 班春의 실체였다. 원고는 소송 비자 다물사리가 同今 소생이며 동금은 其每 소생이라고 하여 기매-동금-다물사리의 連繼를 주장하는 반면, 이준은 소송 비자 반춘이 李今 소생이라 하여 李今-班春이라고 맞섰다. 두 번째 쟁점은 원고와 피고가 각각 제출한 慶州府立案의 眞正成立 여부였다. 세 번째쟁점은 이준이 작성하였다는 還授拷音의 위조 여부였으며, 네 번째 쟁점은 소송물인 일명 반춘 일명다물사리의 증인능력 인정여부였다. 여주이씨 노비소송은 소송쟁점을 둘러싸고 당사자가 ‘소송의 내용(실체)’에 대해 辯論을 전개하는 가운데, ‘소송의 절차’에 대한 문제 제기도 있었다. 이를 주도한 측은 피고 이준 형제였으며, 그 방법은 관찰사에게 올리는 議送所志였다. 이준 형제는 관찰사에게 11차례 의송소지를 올려 이춘수 공동소송인의 當事者適格 여부, 송관 忌避신청, 移送요청 등 ‘소송의 절차’에 대해 권리를 행사함으로써 소송의 주도권을 장악하였다. 이처럼 소송 진행과정에서 당사자가 소송의 절차에 관한 의송소지를 올리고 이를 근거로 관찰사가 소송을 지휘하는 양태는 지금까지 보아온 소송에서는 찾아보기 힘든 모습이다. 반면 원고 이춘수는 의송소지를 한 차례 올려 이준 還授拷音의 진정성을 辯論하는데 그쳤으며, 이후갖가지 핑계를 대며 訟庭에 現身하지 않았다. 이에 따라 소송의 절차에 대한 권리행사로 주도권을 장악한 이준 형제는 관찰사에게 親手自決 즉 직접 決訟해줄 것을 여러 차례 요청하였으며, 마침내 관찰사가 흥해군수에게 親着決折을 지시함에 따라, 여주이씨 노비소송은 소송쟁점이 眞僞不明인 상태에서 절차법인 親着決折法에 의해 마무리되었다. Lawsuit by Yeoju Lee regarding dispute over the ownership of slaves’ signifies that the legalconflict between the plaintiff Chun-soo Lee who had family name Goseong Lee living in Chogye and defendant Lee Joon brother whose family name was Yeoju Lee living in Gyeongju over the ownership of the slaves in 16 century. The case progress of this lawsuit differs from the other typical cases mainly for four reasons as described below. First, the written judgment “Gyul-song-ip-an(決訟立案)” includes 14-page of petition to the provincial governor. This petition consists of 2-page of complaint for filing a suit and the rest of 12-page submitted to the provincial governor during the trial. Second, the plaintiff and defendant actively involved in the litigation procedure bysubmitting the petitions several times. This is noteworthy that the litigants could have exercised not only the right of audience but also procedural right during the course of lawsuit in Joseon Dinasty era. Third, the places of commencing and closing the lawsuits were different due to the reasons such as judge’s recusal, litigant’s application for change of judge, and the order of transferring the case to the other province. Lastly, judge made the final decision according to the rule of constructive admission which is one of the procedural law, when the factual grounds of the cases were ambiguous.

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.

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.

17세기 중엽 해남 윤씨가의 노비소송

한상권 ( Sang Kwon Han ) 한국고문서학회 2011 古文書硏究 Vol.39 No.-

In terms of lawsuits of the Joseon dynasty period, the most valued were the principle of requiring parties directly involved in the lawsuit to present relevant material on their own (當事者主義), and the practice of placing importance upon pleads or arguments made at court(辯論主義). They became distinct characteristics of the Joseon society lawsuits. In other words, the parties involved in the lawsuit were demanded to collect and present all the necessary material pertinent to the case on their own. Under such principles, the people who either initiated or involved in the lawsuit had to be equipped with the capability to see the trial through, and ideally they would have to be a relatively equitable match. Yet in reality, either the parties involved were without such capability, or one side was weaker than the other. The practice of placing ultimate importance upon pleads or arguments made at the court was in danger of being abused, or underused for that matter. In the history of the Western countries of the late 19th century, the right entitled to an overseer to ensure justice is served(釋明權) was conceptualized in order to ensure more fair and appropriate trials. Granting an overseer to exercise this right contributed very much to the civilian lawsuits that operated upon [the somewhat dangerous] ``Involved parties only-principle,`` and enabled equality to be preserved in substantial terms. It should be noted that an instance, in which the local administrative official presiding at the lawsuit(訟官) exercised this right of his to reach a fair judgement, can be found from the lawsuits filed by the Haenam region`s Yun House over Nobi servants, in the mid-17th century. Of course, the decision of the Gangjin Hyeon`gam prefect, the official in question, to exercise such right did not lead directly to a judgment and the issuing of a sentence, as in contemporary trials. His role was limited, and only his opinion and certain questions regarding the case(``報辭``) were relayed to a higher office with the case itself. Yet as apresider at the case, he raised ``reasonable doubts,`` and was faithful to his duty of ``raising questions,`` in order to ensure a fair and appropriate trial. Also as an exerciser of the right to literally find the truth, he maintained an impartial and neutral attitude, and never leaned to a particular side. This example of the Gangjin prefect`s exercise of this authority shows us that the Joseon society was enjoying a high level of legal culture.

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’.