15세기 중반 세종대 조선의 법리 논의 －斷罪無正條조와 不應爲조의 관계－ (Deciding Penalties without Specific Articles of the Criminal Code under King Sejong －A Debate on the Article 46 and the Article 410－)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국법사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 법사학연구 / 44호 / 251 ~ 277페이지
· 저자명 : 최병조

초록

이 글은 律에 구체적인 사건에 바로 맞게 적용할 수 있는 법조, 즉 正條가 없을 경우에 어떻게 대처할 것인가를 둘러싼 법리 논의를 조선왕조실록에 전하는 세종 19년(1437) 7월 10일의 기사를 분석하여 정리해 본 것이다. 조선의 형사사법은 그 事案法的(casuistic) 성격으로 인하여 오늘날과 같이 추상적 일반적 법조문을 마련한 법제와 달리 바로 적용할 수 있을 법조의 미비를 일상적으로 겪지 않을 수 없었고, 이러한 無正條 사태에 대처하기 위한 방편으로 총론인 名例律편에 斷罪無正條조를 두었고, 다시 각론인 雜犯편에 不應爲조를 두었다. 따라서 필연적으로 두 법조의 상호관계가 어떻게 되는지가 문제될 수밖에 없었다. 당시 성균 주부 宋乙開와 의정부가 이에 관하여 개진한 의견은 조선 律學의 높은 수준을 잘 보여준다. 일단 정리된 이 敎義가 이후 잘 지켜졌는가 하는 것은 또 다른 문제이고, 의미 있는 별도의 실증 연구 과제이다.

영어초록

Joseon dynasty (朝鮮) made use of the Great Ming Code, Da Ming lü (大明律), as the general criminal code of the land. The Code’s casuistic character caused many gaps to rise in deciding penalties for wrongful acts which deem to be worthy for punishment, but find no specific articles inflicting a penalty on those acts. Therefore, the Code provides with two articles which shall be applied in case of the absence of the pertaining specific articles. The one is article 46 in the Chapter 1: ‘General Principles’, and the other is article 410 in the Section 9 of the Chapter 6: ‘Miscellaneous Offenses.’

◦Article 46 (Deciding cases without specific articles [斷罪無正條]):The provisons in the Code (律) and Commandment (令) will not cover all matters. When there is no specific article (無i正條) in deciding a penalty, cite a closely analogous article in the Code and decide the case by analogy (引律比附). Propose whether the penalty shall be increased or reduced and submit it to the Ministry of Justice. After deliberation, it shall be memorialized to the throne.


◦Article 410 (Doing what ought not to be done [不應爲]):In all cases of doing what ought not to be done, the offenders shall be punished by 40 strokes of beating with the light stick (笞). (This refers to the cases where neither the Code nor the Commandment has an article dealing with the act, but the act shall not be done according to reason [理].) If the circumstances are serious, the penalty shall be 80 strokes of beating with the heavy stick (杖).


It is natural for the administration of criminal justice to be somewhat perplexed with these two articles in a parallel use. A debate occurred under king Sejong in the 19th year of his reign (1437). Song, Eulgae (宋乙開) asserted that article 410 was to be applied in the first place to the effect that article 46 took place only when article 410 was no more applicable because the matter was dubious or to be pardoned. The Cabinet (議政府) held the contrary to be proper, maintaining that an analogy according to article 46, which is a general provision for all cases, was to be preferred to article 410. The main argument of the Cabinet that Song’s interpretation could not protect the practice from arbitrary abuses by the officials of the interpretive power seemed to hold anyway. And for this case of abuse article 46 also makes available a sanction which is not provided with by article 410. The debate shows a high level of legal discourse at that time. However, it is to be proved whether the resulting doctrine was observed in later times too.

참고자료

· 없음