지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In 1422(4th year of King Sejong's reign), regarding the punishment for a criminal who was a third-time offender in robbery or theft, the government established a principle of 'Sahu Wijwa/赦後爲坐(principle of implicating one with a crime only in cases in which post-pardon offense was detected)' based upon the regulation inside 『Euihyeong Iram/議刑易覽』, which dictated that the government should punish the criminal only when it was absolutely confirmed that the third offense occurred after the criminal had been pardoned from the previous crime. The fact that King Sejong chose 『Euihyeong Iram』 instead of the 『Grand Ming Code(大明律)』 in his consulting and deciding of the course of the legal action he would take, shows that the 『Grand Ming Code』 was not always considered as the ultimate source of legal consultation.
This '赦後爲坐' principle established in 1422 was included in the Joseon dynasty's own original Penal code, the 『Sok-Yukjeon/續六典(Supplemental: The Six Codes)』, and served as the main directive for punishing robbery and theft crimes till 1445(27th year of King Sejong's reign). This '赦後爲坐' principle included in 『Sok-Yukjeon』 originated from the 『Dangryul Soeui/唐律疏議(Discussions of Dang dynasty Law codes)』. We can see that during the reign of King Sejong, aside from the legal interpretations based upon the 『Grand Ming Code』, there was another source for legal consultation which originated from 『Dangryul Soeui』(of the Chinese Dang dynasty) and continued to evolve through 『Euihyeong Iram』(of the Mongol Yuan dynasty) and resulted in the joseon dynasty's own 『Sok-Yukjeon』.
As the government decided to follow the dictation of 『Sok-Yukjeon』, it became considerably difficult to sentence robbery offenders and thieves to death, so people who believed in the merits and effectiveness of harsh punishment started to argue the necessity of inflicting 'Flesh penalties(肉刑)' upon criminals, as such penalties would at least damage the body of the offenders physically. But such 'Flesh penalty' turned out to be a fairly controversial subject, as it was never defined inside the 『Grand Ming Code』, so the argument that Sung dynasty's Ju Hi/朱熹 made regarding heavy penalties was quoted instead, as a theoretical basis for sentencing such penalty. The concept of 'Flesh penalty' was considered as a compromise existing between death penalty and a penalty that would have nothing to do with the life of a person, and therefore was believed to be a penalty embracing the virtue of 'valuing life('好生之德')', as it would not threaten the human life in any way and instead preserve it.
Then finally in 1445, a new principle of sentencing third-time offenders of robbery or theft(竊盜三犯者) to death, regardless of pardon timings, based upon the 『Grand Ming Coder』, was established. The government's declaration of this new principle based upon the 『Grand Ming Code』. rendered the existing principle of '赦後爲坐' of 『Sok-Yukjeon』, that had been maintained for over 20 years, very much obsolete. In other words, the joseon government finally chose the Ming code over the joseon code, and as a result the former became the most formidable source of legal consultation and also the ultimate penal code in joseon, Such status was duly recognized in the 『Gyeongguk Daejeon』 .
This '赦後爲坐' principle established in 1422 was included in the Joseon dynasty's own original Penal code, the 『Sok-Yukjeon/續六典(Supplemental: The Six Codes)』, and served as the main directive for punishing robbery and theft crimes till 1445(27th year of King Sejong's reign). This '赦後爲坐' principle included in 『Sok-Yukjeon』 originated from the 『Dangryul Soeui/唐律疏議(Discussions of Dang dynasty Law codes)』. We can see that during the reign of King Sejong, aside from the legal interpretations based upon the 『Grand Ming Code』, there was another source for legal consultation which originated from 『Dangryul Soeui』(of the Chinese Dang dynasty) and continued to evolve through 『Euihyeong Iram』(of the Mongol Yuan dynasty) and resulted in the joseon dynasty's own 『Sok-Yukjeon』.
As the government decided to follow the dictation of 『Sok-Yukjeon』, it became considerably difficult to sentence robbery offenders and thieves to death, so people who believed in the merits and effectiveness of harsh punishment started to argue the necessity of inflicting 'Flesh penalties(肉刑)' upon criminals, as such penalties would at least damage the body of the offenders physically. But such 'Flesh penalty' turned out to be a fairly controversial subject, as it was never defined inside the 『Grand Ming Code』, so the argument that Sung dynasty's Ju Hi/朱熹 made regarding heavy penalties was quoted instead, as a theoretical basis for sentencing such penalty. The concept of 'Flesh penalty' was considered as a compromise existing between death penalty and a penalty that would have nothing to do with the life of a person, and therefore was believed to be a penalty embracing the virtue of 'valuing life('好生之德')', as it would not threaten the human life in any way and instead preserve it.
Then finally in 1445, a new principle of sentencing third-time offenders of robbery or theft(竊盜三犯者) to death, regardless of pardon timings, based upon the 『Grand Ming Coder』, was established. The government's declaration of this new principle based upon the 『Grand Ming Code』. rendered the existing principle of '赦後爲坐' of 『Sok-Yukjeon』, that had been maintained for over 20 years, very much obsolete. In other words, the joseon government finally chose the Ming code over the joseon code, and as a result the former became the most formidable source of legal consultation and also the ultimate penal code in joseon, Such status was duly recognized in the 『Gyeongguk Daejeon』 .
#사후위좌
#대명률
#당률소의
#의형이람
#속육전
#육형
#엄형론
#관형론
#도적
#단근
#절도삼범자
#Principle of implicating one with a crime only in cases in which post-pardon offense is detected(赦後爲坐)
#Grand Ming Code
#Dangryul Soeui
#Euihyeong Iram
#Sok-Yukjeon
#flesh penalty
#thieves
#斷筋(a penalty of cutting the muscles)
#third-time offender in robbery or theft
목차
머리말
1. 감사론(減死論)
2. 육형론(肉刑論)
3. 사형론(死刑論)
맺음말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
총론 : 조선시대 형률의 운용과 『대명률』
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
조선말기 형사법 체계와 『대명률』의 위상
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
조선 개국 초 지방군 운용 체계의 구축과 그 개편
역사와실학
2016 .11
-
朝鮮後期 英祖代 『續大典』位相의 재검토 : 「刑典」편찬을 중심으로
역사학보
2007 .06
-
조선후기 영조대 법전정비와 『속대전』의 편찬
역사와현실
2008 .06
-
조선후기 이혼의 실상과 『대명률』의 적용
역사와현실
2010 .03
-
총론 : 고려ㆍ조선시대 법운용의 실제와 『대명률』
역사와현실
2010 .03
-
명대의 예제 질서에서 조선국왕의 위상
역사와현실
2012 .06
-
조선초기 귀화정책(歸化政策)과 조명관계(朝明關係)
역사와현실
2012 .03
-
From Liaodongese Refugee to Ming Loyalist : The Historiography of the Sanggok Ma, a Ming Migrant Descent Group in Late Joseon Korea
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2012 .06
-
범자와 동양 문자와에 대한 학설
한글
1936 .05
-
대명률과 조선 중기 형률상의 신분 차별
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
조선후기 도죄(盜罪) 장죄(臟罪)의 구성과 『대명률』
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
인칭 매김법[-在(-견)]에 대한 연구-[대명률 직해]를 중심으로
한글
1984 .06
-
중국어와 한국어의 공간관계성분 사용경향에 대한 고찰 - 코퍼스 분석 및 언어유형학 이론을 중심으로
중국문학
2018 .01
-
朝鮮과 明의 실무적 외교문서 ‘咨文’ 분석
古文書硏究
2013 .01
-
朝鮮後期 正祖代 법제정비와 『大典通編』체제의 구현
대동문화연구
2008 .01
-
중국소설 《西遊記》 번역본의 조선후기 유통에 관한 연구 : 영남대 소장 번역필사본을 중심으로
중국어문논역총간
2017 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-015962735