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
The most definite forms of economic offenses would be the offense of theft (盜罪) and the offense of illegal gaining of property(贓罪), which are the two ultimate forms of illegally obtaining properties from others. Regarding these two offenses, relevant laws and regulations regarding punishment had already been included in 『Gyeongguk Daejeon』 which was promulgated in the early days of the Joseon dynasty, and such regulations continued to exist in the following time periods as we can see from 『Sok-Daejeon』 and 『Daejeon Tongpyeon』, law codes of the 17-18th centuries of Joseon. But these law codes only dictated which punishment should be exacted and also how such exaction of punishment should be done, in cases of offense of this sort that happened inside the Joseon society. The application of criminal law itself was basically instructed to follow the dictation of the 『Grand Ming [Criminal] Code』.
Coming into the reign of King Jeongjo in the 18th century, the concepts of theft offense and 'illegal gaining of property' offense were redefined, and what kind of criminal law should be applied to such offenses were newly debated.
Theft offenses usually referred to various types of offense, including robbery, stealing, theft committed by personnel who was in charge of protecting it, and theft committed by officials not in charge of such protection and also other civilians. Among these offenses, robbery was clearly a criminal offense and was dealt with physical punishments which usually led to death sentences. On the other hand, while being criminal offenses as well, the other three offenses were deemed rather as economic offenses than as life-threatening offenses. And because of such nature of these three types of offenses, some times they were considered as part of the 'illegal gaining of property' offense category as well.
In most cases of 'illegal gaining of property' offenses, the governmental officials were the perpetrators, as they happened to obtain properties from time to time in an inappropriate fashion while attending to their duties. There were three types of 'illegal gaining of property' offenses: Wangbeob-jang/枉法贓(obtaining properties while breaching the law), Bul-Wangbeob-jangl/不枉法贓(obtaining properties without breaching the law), and Jwajang Chijoi-jang/坐贓致罪贓(a case in which the received property did not have any credible or visible link to another act of favor, yet considered illegal because of the size of the it).
Interestingly, the three offenses from the category of theft offense mentioned before(other than the act of [fatal] robbery), and the three types of offenses from the category of 'illegal gaining of property' offense mentioned right above, were at times grouped together and referred to as 'Six kinds of illegal gaining of property offenses' as a whole. Also, a chart describing the level of the punishments' severeness depending upon the amount of property inappropriately obtained by others was devised, and was referred to as the Yukjang-dou(Chart of Six kinds of illegal gaining of property)', This kind of classification of the 'illegal gaining of property' offenses, through the format of Yukjang-do', appeared for the first time in the 『Chugwan-ji/秋官志』, the office annal of the Justice department/the 'Hyeongjo/刑曹' office) that was published during the reign of King Jeongjo.
The fact that this 'Yukiang-do' appeared in the 『Chugwan-ji』 for the first time, means that economic crimes such as 'illegal gaining of property' offenses were considerably increasing at the time, and so were the government's responses to such crimes. But the criminal code system of Yukjang-do was far from being an original one, as it was only a modification of what had already been included in the 『Grand Ming [Criminal) Code』, which means that the 『Grand Ming Code』 still remained powerful, and served as the ultimate source of legal consultation even in the 17-18th centuries.
Coming into the reign of King Jeongjo in the 18th century, the concepts of theft offense and 'illegal gaining of property' offense were redefined, and what kind of criminal law should be applied to such offenses were newly debated.
Theft offenses usually referred to various types of offense, including robbery, stealing, theft committed by personnel who was in charge of protecting it, and theft committed by officials not in charge of such protection and also other civilians. Among these offenses, robbery was clearly a criminal offense and was dealt with physical punishments which usually led to death sentences. On the other hand, while being criminal offenses as well, the other three offenses were deemed rather as economic offenses than as life-threatening offenses. And because of such nature of these three types of offenses, some times they were considered as part of the 'illegal gaining of property' offense category as well.
In most cases of 'illegal gaining of property' offenses, the governmental officials were the perpetrators, as they happened to obtain properties from time to time in an inappropriate fashion while attending to their duties. There were three types of 'illegal gaining of property' offenses: Wangbeob-jang/枉法贓(obtaining properties while breaching the law), Bul-Wangbeob-jangl/不枉法贓(obtaining properties without breaching the law), and Jwajang Chijoi-jang/坐贓致罪贓(a case in which the received property did not have any credible or visible link to another act of favor, yet considered illegal because of the size of the it).
Interestingly, the three offenses from the category of theft offense mentioned before(other than the act of [fatal] robbery), and the three types of offenses from the category of 'illegal gaining of property' offense mentioned right above, were at times grouped together and referred to as 'Six kinds of illegal gaining of property offenses' as a whole. Also, a chart describing the level of the punishments' severeness depending upon the amount of property inappropriately obtained by others was devised, and was referred to as the Yukjang-dou(Chart of Six kinds of illegal gaining of property)', This kind of classification of the 'illegal gaining of property' offenses, through the format of Yukjang-do', appeared for the first time in the 『Chugwan-ji/秋官志』, the office annal of the Justice department/the 'Hyeongjo/刑曹' office) that was published during the reign of King Jeongjo.
The fact that this 'Yukiang-do' appeared in the 『Chugwan-ji』 for the first time, means that economic crimes such as 'illegal gaining of property' offenses were considerably increasing at the time, and so were the government's responses to such crimes. But the criminal code system of Yukjang-do was far from being an original one, as it was only a modification of what had already been included in the 『Grand Ming [Criminal) Code』, which means that the 『Grand Ming Code』 still remained powerful, and served as the ultimate source of legal consultation even in the 17-18th centuries.
목차
머리말
1. 도죄(盜罪)의 구성
2. 장죄(臟罪)의 구성
맺음말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Edge-Features and Scrambling
언어과학
2010 .01
-
16세기 조선 對明 불법무역의 확대와 그 의의
한국사연구
2015 .09
-
조선말기 형사법 체계와 『대명률』의 위상
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
唐代 竊盜罪의 類型과 量刑
중국사연구
2009 .01
-
총론 : 조선시대 형률의 운용과 『대명률』
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
총론 : 고려ㆍ조선시대 법운용의 실제와 『대명률』
역사와현실
2010 .03
-
조선후기 이혼의 실상과 『대명률』의 적용
역사와현실
2010 .03
-
대명률과 조선 중기 형률상의 신분 차별
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
1895~1908년간 서울의 범죄 양상과 정부의 형사 정책
역사와현실
2009 .12
-
미학주의의 현실적 응전력 - 정지용의 「도굴」론
어문학
2008 .06
-
불법체류자의 권리인정과 사법소극주의
다문화와 평화
2015 .01
-
세종대 치도론(治盜論)과 『대명률』 : 절도삼범자(竊盜三犯者) 처벌을 둘러싼 논변을 중심으로
역사와현실
2007 .09
-
《經國大典》의 編纂과 《大明律》
역사학보
1990 .03
-
Legal Privileges Under the Early Yi Dynasty Criminal Codes (Ⅱ)
Korea Journal
1975 .05
-
Legal Privileges Under the Early Yi Dynasty Criminal Codes (Ⅰ)
Korea Journal
1975 .04
-
일본 불법체류관리의 정책수단에 관한 연구
다문화와 평화
2018 .01
-
(중요도-성취도)분석에 의한 청소년수련시설 운영실태 조사연구
한국조경학회지
1995 .01
-
도시공원의 관리체계에 관한 연구
한국조경학회지
1996 .01
-
공공 휴양림과 민간 휴양림의 개발요소별 이용 만족도의 차이
한국조경학회지
2001 .01
-
주제공원 방문자 만족의 결정경로와 요인- 에버랜드 방문자를 중심으로 -
한국조경학회지
1998 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-015962755