15세기 후반 조선의 법률논변: 私婢 斤非 사건을 중심으로
Legal Reasoning in the Late 15th Century in Korea: The Case of Geunbi, a bondwoman
최병조(서울대학교)
52권 1호, 1~53쪽
초록
1479년 조선 성종 10년 斤非라는 私婢가 먼저 車敬南이란 자와 朴仲孫이라는 자의“仲媒”로 관계를 맺고, 한 열흘 뒤에 朴終孫이란 자와 정을 통했는데, 車를 죽이겠다고 근비에게 말한 朴이 마침내 근비와 동침 중인 車를 살해하였고, 근비는 이 살인에 共謀한 죄로 재판을 받게 되었는데, 死罪에 해당하는 사안이어서 세종조 이래제도화되었던 三覆의 절차를 거치게 되었다. 初覆은 大明律 謀殺人條의 죄목으로杖流를 건의한 刑曹의 의견에 대해서, 再覆은 初覆 시의 임금의 견해를 반영하여知情殺本夫의 죄책을 묻는 殺死姦夫條의 죄목으로 陵遲處死로 의견을 바꾸어 올린刑曹의 覆奏文에 대하여, 그리고 마지막으로 三覆은 再覆을 참작하여 絞刑 의견을올린 刑曹의 啓本에 대하여 각각 이루어졌다. 刑曹의 최종판정은 陵遲處死였지만,임금은 이를 斬刑으로 바꾸도록 裁決하였다. 이 사건은 당시 임금과 물경 48명에 이르는 문무 臣僚가 참여하여 진지하게 公論場을 열었다는 점에서 세계적으로도 유례를 찾아보기 어려운 매우 특기할 만한 사건이다. 성종의 개인적인 상황과 무엇보다도 그의 성향이 크게 한 몫을 한 것으로보인다. 그러나 법적 추론의 면에서는 당시 극동의 법제와 법문화가 가졌던 한계를고스란히 노정시킬 수밖에 없었다. 그 한계란 한 마디로 로마법-서구법문화 식의 전문법률가와 법학이 부재했다는 사실로 축약될 수 있다. 당시 법문화의 특성과 한계는보다 심층적인 차원에서는 그 문화주체들의 사유 방식과 긴밀한 관련이 있다는 점은시사하는 선에서 그쳤다.
Abstract
In 1479 a private bondwoman Geunbi (斤非. X) was convicted of killing her husband. She, twenty years old, had a sexual relationship with a man (B), a certain man (C)acted as a go-between. Eight days later, she then committed adultery with another man (A) who came to her because he was covetous of her. Then A said to her that he would kill B. But X did not tell anything to inform either B or anyone else. One day when X was sleeping with B, A killed B without any help from X to rescue B. The murder case was in 1479 put to the discussion before the king Seongjong (成宗) three times according to the law. At first the Ministry of Criminal Justice held that X was to be beaten and put to deportation, but the king took her for deserved of a capital punishment, and the Ministry altered its proposal to a capital punishment. The ensuing deliberations with forty-eight mandarine high officers were concentrated upon two issues: whether or not B was X’s legitimate husband and whether or not X took part in the killing act. They were divided into two opposing opinions, one for the capital punishment, the other against it. Although the majority (56.25%) was against it, the opinion of the king who from the outset wanted her to be punished with death penalty prevailed at the end. The case shows how legal reasoning and argumentation of that time proceeded. It is worthy of mention that the then high justice was very careful, perhaps too careful,and the king very conscious about his role as a fostering pater patriae according to the Confucian statecraft ideology. The ruling king Seongjong was especially principled in the matter of law. Notwithstanding that, however, the administration of justice was suffering from the lack of professional jurists and reliable legal doctrine in a modern sense. As a result, the deliberations seem to be relatively less analytic and less systematic and rather strongly influenced by certain moral concepts such as the principles ruling basic human relations (in our case husband-wife relation). The fact-finding as such was apparently considered to be essential, but there were no proper ways in institutions of finding out the truth except torture, and the majority of the participants did not care much about the details. The legal norms in Dae-myeong-ryul (大明律) which formed the positive basis of their legal reasoning in criminal cases were also too casuistic to be a body of general legal rules applicable to ever engendering new situations. It is hinted out that the then ways of law depended upon the modes and ways of thinking of that time and culture as such.
- 발행기관:
- 법학연구소
- 분류:
- 법학