우리시대 사진의 상황 : 풍경 ( 한상권 )

한상권 현대사진영상학회 1998 우리시대 사진의 상황 Vol.- No.-

조선시대 법전 편찬의 흐름과 각종 법률서의 성격

한상권 한국역사연구회 1994 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.13

『사송유취』 편찬과 改修

한상권 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2022 규장각 Vol.61 No.-

조선시대 소송 법제의 틀은 『경국대전』에서 마련되었다. 이후 소송의 만연으로 자연히 소송법이 발달하여 16세기에 들어 『대전사송유취』와 『사송유취』 등 여러 종류의 소송 법서들이 제작ㆍ유통되게 이르렀다. 이는 『경국대전』, 『대전속록』, 『『대전후속록』이라는 국가의 법전편찬 작업이 있었기 때문에 가능한 일이었다. 김백간이 편찬한 『사송유취』는 편목체제를 취하였다. 이 시기 편목체제로 편찬된 소송법서 가운데 『사송유취』가 완성도, 영향력, 생명력에서 가장 탁월하였다. 『사송유취』가 출간되고 60여 년이 지난 17세기 중엽 『결송유취』가 永川에서 改刊되었다. 하지만 조목이나 조문을 그대로 답습하였기에 새로운 내용 증보는 없었다. 그리고 다시 17세기 후반 박태보의 『사송유취』 新修 작업이 있었으나 역시 새로운 내용 증보는 없었다. 이는 국가의 법전편찬이라는 뒷받침이 없었기 때문에 나타나는 불가피한 현상이었다.

역사 연구의 심화와 사료이용의 확대 : 암행어사 관련자료의 종류와 사료적 가치

한상권 한국역사연구회 1991 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.6

안중근의 하얼빈 거사와 공판투쟁(2) : 외무성 관리·통감부 파견원의 신문과 불공정한 재판 진행에 대한 투쟁을 중심으로 Interrogations of An Chung-gun by an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an appointee of the Government General and An's protests of the unjust trials against him

한상권 德成女子大學校 2004 德成女大論文集 Vol.33 No.-

It was as an attempt by An Chung-gun (安重根: 1879-1910), a Korean patriot, to keep his country from capitulating into a Japanese colony that in October 1909 he assassinated Ito Hirobumi, a supreme commander in the Japanese aggression towards Korea, at Harbin, Russia. An was arrested at the scene. At interrogations by prosecutors, officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and those of the Japanese police and in the course of a trial conducted, An struggles publicly with the authorities to assert the legitimacy of his action. Imperialist Japan, however, after conducting 25 interrogations over a 5 month period and staging a one week perfunctory trial, executed An. We call An Chung-gun's independent struggle against the Japanese judiciary authorities 'An's litigating struggle in a public tribunal'. This article focuses on An's litigating struggles against the interrogations by Kurachi, a bureau chief dispatched by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan and Sakai, a Japanese police authority dispatched by the Government-General, and the perfunctory and unfair trails led by judge Manabe, a judge of the Kwantung Local Government. This article draws the following three conclusions. First, his struggle at the judicial court ensured the ideological and moral justification of the independence movementof Korea and proved that his assassination of Ito was not out of personal grievance or for personal gain but for the independence of Korea and the peace of theOriental countries. Second, his struggle helped save organizations within the independence movement from being destroyed. The assassination of Ito at Harbin prompted the Japanese government and the Government-General to an intensive round up of freedom fighters and a ferreting out of theindependence movement organization s both at home and abroad, mobilizing all possible intelligence net works. An's fight at the public trials thwarted Japan's plan. Third, his activities became a model for independence movements. Following his assassination of Ito at Harbin, the people extolled An as a 'righteous person' while living (which corresponds to 'martyr') and as 'a great man' in death. Within three weeks of his martyring death for his country Korea, his biography was published and widely read. This account was commented on not only by Korean nationalist historians such as Park Eun-sik, and Sin Chae-ho but the Chinese leaders of Liang Qichao, Sun Wen, Li Hongzhang, Yuan Shika wrote books extolling him as a man of heroic and noble mind. An Chung-gun for his acts of ultimate patriotism and heroic struggle in the ensuing public trials stands tall in the annals of the Korean independence movement. Through plays, biographies, songs and more, he lives on in the hearts of freedom fighters: a regenerative engine for Koreans not wishing to fall prey to defeatism. Ultimately, An Chung-gun's litigating struggle formed an evolutionary step in the restoration of sovereignty on par with the education and national products movements and the righteous army movement that he actively led.

제헌헌법의 평등이념

한상권 덕성여자대학교 인문과학연구소 2017 인문과학연구 Vol.24 No.-

Ideological foundation of establishing the Republic of Korea is republicanismand egalitarianism consistently pursued by the party of an independence movement. The republic of Korea established as the result of fighting against invasion of theimperialism has aimed the social and economic democracy based on the substantialand political equality due to the concern that formalistic and political democracycannot be the means to solve the economic inequality. The First Constitutionexpanded and strengthened the people’s fundamental rights to the range of socialand economic rights, not only right of freedom in order to substantialize thedemocracy. With respect to the economic system, free market economy was adoptedas basic principle and social market economy as practical principle. Economicdemocracy as well as social market economy were in succession to tradition ofthe independence movement emphasizing on republicanism and egalitarian declaredin the First Constitution. 대한민국의 정신적 토대는 독립운동세력이 끈질기게 추구해 왔던 공화주의와 평등주의 이념이다. 1948년 대한민국은 새롭게 출범하면서 형식적․정치적 민주주의가 약자의 경제적 불평등을 해결하지 못한다고 보고, 실질적․경제적 평등을 지향하는 사회․경제적 민주주의를 표방하였다. “기미 3.1운동으로 대한민국을 건립하여세계에 선포한 위대한 독립정신을 계승”하여 “민주독립 국가를 재건”한 결과였다. 제헌헌법은 국민 기본권의 내용을 자유권에서 사회․경제권으로 확대 심화하여민주주의가 실체화할 수 있도록 하였다. 제헌헌법은 사적 소유권을 보장하면서도 국민의 삶을 높은 수준에서 유지해주는 복지국가를 추구했다. 경제 질서는 ‘사회정의의 실현’과 ‘균형 있는 국민경제의 수립’을 2대 기본 원칙으로 삼았으며, 경제를 개인과 기업에만 맡겨둠으로써 발생하는 소득불균형, 경제력 남용, 경제 주체간의 갈등을 해소하기 위해 국가가 경제에 관한 규제와 조정을 할 수 있도록 하는 사회적 시장경제를 채택하였다. 제헌헌법이 지향하는 경제민주주의와 사회적 시장경제는 공화주의와 평등주의를 이념으로 삼은 독립운동의 전통을 계승한 것이었다.

차미리사의 교육이념 - 근화여학교 교훈을 중심으로 -

한상권 덕성여자대학교 인문과학연구소 2009 인문과학연구 Vol.12 No.-

당률과 명률의 형벌체계와 형벌론

한상권 한국법사학회 2019 法史學硏究 Vol.59 No.-

China had developed the high standards of criminal laws from old times. The Dang Code with Commentaries(唐律疏議) complied in the mid-seventh century and the Great Ming Code(大明律) complied in the late fourteenth century clearly show such development of the criminal law system. These two codes representing a standard of Chinese legal system consist of the general provisions(總則) and particulars(各則), and both place the Law on Punishments and General Principles(名例律) as a general provision at the beginning of law. On the other hand, whereas the Dang Code with Commentaries consist of 12 parts in succession to the tradition of Northern Dynasty(北朝)’s criminal jurisprudence, the Great Ming Code has System of Six laws(六典體制) categorized as Li(吏)·Ho(戶)·Ye(禮)·Byung(兵)·Hyung(刑)·Gong(工) influenced by the Institutes of the Yuan Dynasty (元典章). Though a penal system of the Dang Dynasty’s Code and the Ming Dynasty’s Code both have the Five Punishments(五刑) in common, there are some differences in the detailed contents. The Ming Dynasty’s Code is differentiated from the Dang Dynasty’s Code as follows; (1) it imposes the punishments of beating with the heavy stick(杖刑) in addition to the penal servitude(徒刑) and the punishments of life exile(流刑) which are the type of punishment of restricting physical freedom; (2) there is a tattooing (刺字) as a punishment of harming a body not included in the Five Punishments; (3) it contains the banishment(遷徙) and settling in remote regions(安置) in between the penal servitude and the punishments of life exile; (4) it imposes penalty of serving in the military(充軍) which is in between the punishments of life exile(流刑) and the death penalty(死罪); and (5) it stipulates the sentence to death by slicing(陵遲處死) as a type of the death penalty(死罪) not included in the Five Punishments. Further, the Ming Dynasty’s Code and the Dang Dynasty’s Code are different in terms of the criminal jurisprudence. In regards to the limit of analogical interpretation of the law, while the Dang Dynasty’s Code allows to cite the Code and decide the case by analogy(引律比附) to adjust the sentence quantitatively, the Ming Dynasty’s Code further allows to qualitatively cite the Code and decide the case by analogy. With respect to the criteria of application of the codes, the Dang Dynasty’s Code applies the law based on the timing of committing a crime(行爲時法主義), but the Mingg Dynasty’s Code applies the law based on the timing of judging a matter(裁判時法主義). Also, regarding the foreign criminals, while the Dang Dynasty’s Code takes the principle of personal jurisdiction(屬人法主義), the Ming Dynasty’s Code is based on the territorial principle(屬地法主義). 중국은 형법이 옛날부터 그 발전정도가 현저하였다. 이를 잘 보여주는 법전이 7세기 중엽에 편찬된 『唐律疏議』와 14세기 후반에 편찬된 『大明律』이다. 중국의 법률수준을 대표하는 양대 법전은 체제 면에서 總則과 分則으로 구성되어 있으며, 總則에 해당하는 名例律을 篇首에 배치하였다는 공통점을 지니고 있다. 반면 당률이 北朝 율학의 전통을 계승해 12篇目으로 구성되어 있으나, 명률은 『元典章』의 영향을 받아 吏·戶·禮·兵·刑·工의 六典體制를 갖추고 있다는 차이점이 있다. 隋의 開皇律을 계승한 당률과 당률을 기반으로 편찬한 명률의 형벌체계는 동일한 五刑이지만 내용면에서 차이점이 있다. 당률과는 달리 명률은 (1)자유형인 徒刑과 流刑에 신체형인 杖刑을 倂科하였으며, (2)오형에 없는 肉刑인 刺字를 두었으며, (3)오형에 없는 추방형인 遷徙와 安置를 徒罪와 流罪 사이에 두었으며, (4)오형에 없는 充軍을 流罪와 死罪 사이에 두었으며, (5)오형에 없는 陵遲處死를 死罪에 두었다. 당률과 명률은 형벌론도 차이점이 있다. 類推解釋의 허용범위를 둘러싸고, 당률은 量刑 조정을 위해 引律比附를 허용함으로써 定量的인 데 초점을 맞춘 반면, 명률은 법에 명시되어 있지 않은 범죄행위에 대해 성질이 비슷한 다른 조항을 끌어다 적용하는 것까지 포함하도록 적용범위를 넓힘으로써 定性的인 引律比附까지 허용하였다. 또한 율문이 효력을 발휘하는 시간적 적용 범위를 둘러싸고, 당률은 行爲時法主義를 취한 반면 명률은 裁判時法主義를 택하였다. 외국인 범죄에 대해서도, 당률은 屬人法主義에 따라 재판하도록 하는 반면 명률은 屬地法主義를 취하였다.

제7차 교육과정 고등학교 『국사』교과서의 역사 인식 및 서술 내용 : 사회사의 '신분제도', '향촌사회', '농민항쟁' 에 관한 서술을 중심으로

한상권 덕성여자대학교 인문과학연구소 2002 인문과학연구 Vol.0 No.7

『추안급국안』 자료의 신빙성: 1689년(숙종 15) 박태보 친국 기록을 중심으로

한상권 서울대학교 규장각한국학연구원 2023 한국문화 Vol.- No.102

King’s interrogation records(Chu-guk-an) was recognized as a crucial material to reproduce the vivid voices of the oppressed people in the pre-modern era since it has been first introduced to academia given that it was the preliminary record of interrogation at the site. However, questions have recently raised about the credibility of such records because Chu-guk-an is a record on the basis of harsh torture and severe punishment on criminals who attempted to rebel. It was confirmed that Park Tae-bo’s entire statement was deleted in Gi-sa-chin-guk-an which was the record of king’s interrogation of Park Tae-bo in 1689(the 15th year of King Suk-jong's reign), through comparison with the Annals of King Sukjong and Gi-sa-chin-guk-an. This was because Gi-sa-chin-guk-an was directly against the integrity and authenticity of King Suk-jong. King Suk-jong deleted Park Tae-bo's entire statement in Gi-sa-chin-guk-an to protect the dignity and absoluteness of the royal authority. .