사법의 明淸교체 ― 贖刑의 역설과 實刑主義로의 전환 ― = Ming-Qing Transition in the Jurisdiction — The Paradox of Amends and the Shift to Actual Punishment —

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Ming-Qing Transition brought about huge changes in the judicial aspect. Among them, focusing on the punishment system, there was a difference in that during the Ming era, the five punishments were not actually executed and were replaced through amends fine or labor, whereas during the Qing era, it was preferably not allowed. This study shows the reasons why amends fine was suppressed during the Qing era, and reveal the process of this change.
The analysis of the judicial tradition of the Manchus before entering the China proper, the differences in the systems between Ming and Qing did not provide a strong answer to finding the cause of the Qing’s reduction of amends fine. What I focused on was the harmful effects of widespread amends fine during the Ming era. The original purpose of amends fine was to avoid the actual execution of the five punishments on the people, but it was developing into a corruption as local officials forced amends fine even on those who could not afford to pay amends fine.
After entering Beijing, the Qing dynasty declared the abolition of amends fine, and although there were vicissitudes, it established a judicial system centered on actual punishment. This was possible because legal abilities were being made to execute the five punishments as an actual sentence, which had been replaced by amends fine. The punishment of caning was changed to reduce the legal number by about 40%, and the biggest concern, the exile punishment, was solved by using the northeastern region, which had been empty after Manchus’ moving.
Although amends fine and actual punishment appear to be in conflict, but at the same time they coexisted in a form that simultaneously satisfying judicial demand of the dynasty. As the military exile was expanded behind the amends fine during the Ming era, at the Qing era, the burden of jurisdiction was shared to some extent by the amends even under the principle of actual punishment.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 홍성화, "청대 변발령 시행과 사회통합" 127 : 2023

2 이선애, "청대 몽골법과 가축절도죄" 73 : 2022

3 유소맹, "여진 부락에서 만주 국가로" 푸른역사 2013

4 고려대학교 민족문화연구원 만문노당역주회, "만문노당 역주 (태종)" 소명출판 2017

5 김인희, "관용적인 정복자 대원제국" 동북아역사재단 2023

6 鈴木秀光, "鎖帶鐵桿･鎖帶石礅と淸代後期刑事裁判" 75 (75): 2012

7 キム･ハンバク, "配流刑の時代 : 淸朝と刑罰" 京都大學學術出版會 2022

8 吳亮, "萬曆疏鈔"

9 琴川居士, "皇淸奏議"

10 "皇明經世文編"

11 "淸實錄"

12 "淸史稿" 中華書局 1976

13 王天馳, "淸前期マンチュリアにおける家族･法･社會" 교토대학 2021

14 王雲紅, "淸代流放制度硏究" 人民出版社 2013

15 史楨豪, "淸代捐贖制度初探" 남경대학 2016

16 喜多三佳, "淸代の｢罰金｣と地方財政" 56 : 2006

17 김한밝, "淸代 配所 유배범의 석방과 自新의 원용" 150 : 2020

18 이상훈, "淸代 贖刑 體系의 變化와 그 背景 : 明律과 淸律의 差異에 대한 검토를 겸하여" 44 : 2015

19 김한밝, "淸代 笞杖刑의 집행과 죄인의 사망" 162 : 2023

20 島田正郎, "東洋法史" 東京敎學社 2001

21 "景印文淵閣四庫全書" 商務印書館 1983

22 中央硏究院 歷史語言硏究所, "明淸史料 乙編" 商務印書館 1936

23 "明實錄"

24 "明史" 中華書局 1974

25 吳艷紅, "明代流刑考" 6 : 2000

26 김한밝, "明代의 贖刑主義와 充軍의 팽창" 142 : 2023

27 王新擧, "明代贖刑制度硏究" 中國財政經濟出版社 2015

28 黃彰健, "明代律例彙編" 中央硏究院 歷史語言硏究所 1979

29 박민수, "攝政王 도르곤의 北京 점령과 遷都의 실행" 48 : 2017

30 畢自嚴, "度支奏議"

31 熊謀林, "大淸帝國的贖刑: 基于《刑案匯覽》的實證硏究" 6 : 2019

32 端方, "大淸光緒新法令"

33 "大淸五朝會典" 綫装書局 2006

34 "大明律集解附例" 臺灣學生書局 1970

35 懷效鋒, "大明律" 法律出版社 1998

36 梅原郁, "前近代中國の刑罰" 京都大學人文科學硏究所 1996

37 "內閣大庫檔案"

38 楊一凡, "中國珍稀法律典籍集成 乙編 第2冊" 科學出版社 1994

39 楊一凡, "中國珍稀法律典籍續編 제5책" 黑龍江人民出版社 2002

40 滋賀秀三, "中國法制史論集" 創文社 2003

41 陶安あんど, "中國刑罰史における明代贖法: 唐律的『贖刑』概念との比較" 57 (57): 1999

42 Hu Xiangyu, "Reinstating the Authority of the Five Punishments: A New Perspective on Legal Privilege for Bannermen" 34 (34): 2013

43 김한밝, "Medical Treatment of Criminals in Premodern China Based on Qing Era Local Archives : Focusing on the Case of Ba County in the late 18th Century" 32 (32): 2023