1862년 발생한 임술민란의 수습 과정에서, 철종은 3품 이하의 관료와 유생에게 試策에 응하도록 구언을 내렸다. 이 때 작성된 임술년 삼정책은 총 90여 편이 현전하며, 영남지역의 삼정책은 약 40여 편으로 가장 많다. 본고는 그 중에서 復齋 李彙濬(1806-1867)의 삼정책에 주목하고, 서술 양상과 경세론을 검토하였다. 이휘준은 당시 관인으로 활동하면서 영남지역의 여론을 주도한 인물로, 시책에서 三下의 성적으로 뽑혔으며, 삼정책의 성격과 작성 방식을 밝힌 편지글을 남겼다. 이휘준은 삼정책을 科策과는 다른 시무책으로 인식하였으며, 擇人, 尙儉, 明賞罰 등의 내용 이외에 奇策을 제시해야만 채택될 수 있다고 여겼다. 책제의 지침을 받아들여 불필요한 전고의 인용을 지양하고, 我朝의 사례에 집중하여 서술하였는데, 이는 이휘준의 구폐론이 제도 운영론에 방점을 둔 것과 관련이 있었다. 이휘준은 삼정 중 환정을 가장 시급한 현안으로 여겼고, 환곡의 운영 방법에 대하여 상세히 제시하였다. 또한 사창제나 호포제를 반대하는 등, 舊制의 계승 및 운영 방안에 집중하여 구폐책을 논하는 보수적인 입장을 취하였다. 왕권의 행사를 통해 상벌로 풍속을 바로잡고 기강을 세울 것을 주장하였으며, 무엇보다 구폐책을 실천하여 백성들의 신뢰를 회복해야 한다고 역설하였다. 특히 삼정의 폐단의 근본적인 원인으로 貪汚를 지목하고, 당대의 사치 풍조에 기인하여 뇌물이 횡행하는 세태를 극렬히 비판하면서, 불법에 연루된 관리들을 엄형으로 처벌할 것을 촉구하였다. 尙儉과 立紀綱의 강조는 퇴계 가문의 이휘재의 삼정책에서도 발견되는 공통점으로, 추후 더욱 비교하여 고찰해 볼 필요가 있다.
Samjeongchaek were written in 1862 by bureaucrats of Rank 3 and under and Confucian scholars in response to Cheoljong’s request for advice from his vassals about how to resolve Imsul-Year People’s Revolt. To date, 90 volumes of the document have been found, of which 40 are from the Yeongnam region, accounting for the largest share by region. Bokjae Yi Hwi-jun had a strong influence over public sentiment in the Yeongnam region in 1862. His “Samjeongchaek” was selected with the grade of samha. One of his letters describes the characteristics of samjeongchaek and his views on how to write them. This study shed light on Bokjae’s “Samjeongchaek”, which is a meaningful piece which details the various aspects of samjeongchaek from the Yeongnam region. Bokjae viewed the samjeongchaek written in 1862 not as kwachaek, taechaek written as model answers for an exam, but as documents presenting relevant ways to rectify harmful situations. He thought that principles, such as selecting the right person for a job, being frugal, and giving strict rewards and punishments, should be included in “Samjeongchaek” and that only those which proposed special measures would be chosen by the royal court. This view is reflected in his “Samjeongchaek”. His introduction is written in a narrative style that is similar to those of gochaek and maintains the basic direction required by chaekje, the king’s question in response to which taechaek are written. It also refrains from mentioning unnecessary precedents. Instead, the narrative stays focused on exemplary cases from Joseon. He also cited chaekje in a number of times and faithfully presented his answer. This style was a product of the fact that Bokjae’s measures for rectifying harmful situations did not propose institutional reforms, but were conservative and partially incorporated views from chaekje. Bokjae considered the state’s grain loan system as the most urgent of the Three Policies related to land, military and relief work. He presented a detailed suggestion for how to run the grain loan system and discussed the need and ways to punish bureaucrats who abused the system. He maintained a conservative stance that argued for the succession and righteous operation of existing systems and opposed the implementation of sachang, village granaries, and hopo, taxes that are used to collect cotton or hemp by ho. He also emphasized that maintaining public morality and discipline through reward and punishment was an important exercise of royal authority and claimed that measures should be taken to rectify harmful situations in order to restore the trust of the people. He argued that corruption was the fundamental cause of the problems with the Three Policies. He vehemently criticized bureaucratic extravagance and bribery that was prevalent in those days and called for strict punishments for bureaucrats who broke the law. Samjeongchaek from the Yeongnam region emphasized the need to increase discipline. While Bokjae’s proposed policy measures were practical compared to the less substantial contributions of others, his stance was considered to be conservative even in the Yeongnam region.