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
Regarding Ahn Jung-Geun trial, the historic background that he should be trialed by Japan, and the perspective internal and external Korean and Japanese execution maneuver have been mentioned. And those facts can be concluded as following.
The exercise of Ahn Jung-Geun’s jurisdiction was conducted at least after the Russia-Japan war, when the Japan’s continuous maneuver to have absolute control over Korean jurisdiction hit its peak, not as Russia extradited him to Japan due to Ahn Jung-Geun’s worthy undertaking in Oct, 26, 1909. As a measure dominate overseas Korean jurisdiction, Japan abolished Korean overseas diplomatic machinery.
Japan’s abolishment of Korean overseas diplomatic machinery which took place through 1905-1906, caused the problems regarding overseas Korean’s jurisdiction. Russia stated on The Far East Daily(遠東報)that overseas Korean’s jurisdiction would be given to Ch’ing, denying. Thereupon, Japan pressed Russia to acknowledge Korean’spursuant to Chosun-Ch’ing commercial treaty and in the end, Russia acknowledge Korea’sin May, 30, 1907.
Such Japan’s pillage in Korean jurisdiction left a precedence that Japanese law applied in Korean jurisdiction in Kim Jae-dong and Seo Jae-GeunJapanese murder case. Such precedence influenced the Ahn Jung-Geun trial and provided the reason to apply Japanese domestic law in Ahn Jung-Geun trial. However, Japan insist that the reason the Japanese domestic law was applied to Kim Jae-dong and Seo Jae-Geun is for judicial convenience. Therefore, it implies that Japan acknowledged that application of Japanese domestic law in Ahn Jung-Geun case is in violation of its own domestic law. Furthermore, the decisive evidence that Ahn Jung-Geun trial was conducted violating both Japan’s domestic law and international law is found in royal order 196 announced in Apr, 5, 1910. The royal order 196 states that under the Emperor structure, Japanese domestic law is applied to Korean and this indeed implies that application of Japanese domestic law in Korean trial prior to the announcement of the royal order 196 violates the law.
Japan concluded, of Ahn Jung-Geun after entire investigation. Although Ahn Jung-Geun was to be trialed on Japanese court pursuant to Japanese law, Japan minutely conducted plans to execute Ahn Jung-Geun. As a result of such maneuver, Ahn Jung-Geun was executed.
The exercise of Ahn Jung-Geun’s jurisdiction was conducted at least after the Russia-Japan war, when the Japan’s continuous maneuver to have absolute control over Korean jurisdiction hit its peak, not as Russia extradited him to Japan due to Ahn Jung-Geun’s worthy undertaking in Oct, 26, 1909. As a measure dominate overseas Korean jurisdiction, Japan abolished Korean overseas diplomatic machinery.
Japan’s abolishment of Korean overseas diplomatic machinery which took place through 1905-1906, caused the problems regarding overseas Korean’s jurisdiction. Russia stated on The Far East Daily(遠東報)that overseas Korean’s jurisdiction would be given to Ch’ing, denying. Thereupon, Japan pressed Russia to acknowledge Korean’spursuant to Chosun-Ch’ing commercial treaty and in the end, Russia acknowledge Korea’sin May, 30, 1907.
Such Japan’s pillage in Korean jurisdiction left a precedence that Japanese law applied in Korean jurisdiction in Kim Jae-dong and Seo Jae-GeunJapanese murder case. Such precedence influenced the Ahn Jung-Geun trial and provided the reason to apply Japanese domestic law in Ahn Jung-Geun trial. However, Japan insist that the reason the Japanese domestic law was applied to Kim Jae-dong and Seo Jae-Geun is for judicial convenience. Therefore, it implies that Japan acknowledged that application of Japanese domestic law in Ahn Jung-Geun case is in violation of its own domestic law. Furthermore, the decisive evidence that Ahn Jung-Geun trial was conducted violating both Japan’s domestic law and international law is found in royal order 196 announced in Apr, 5, 1910. The royal order 196 states that under the Emperor structure, Japanese domestic law is applied to Korean and this indeed implies that application of Japanese domestic law in Korean trial prior to the announcement of the royal order 196 violates the law.
Japan concluded, of Ahn Jung-Geun after entire investigation. Although Ahn Jung-Geun was to be trialed on Japanese court pursuant to Japanese law, Japan minutely conducted plans to execute Ahn Jung-Geun. As a result of such maneuver, Ahn Jung-Geun was executed.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 일제의 재외한인에 대한 사법권침탈의 논리와 전개
Ⅲ. 안중근재판의 관할권 침탈과 재판공작
Ⅳ. 맺음말
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (35)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
안중근을 보는 두 가지 시선 ― 남북한 영화가 재현해 낸 애국적 인물의 궤적 ―
인문콘텐츠
2003 .06
-
Russian and Japanese Diplomatic Responses on Interrogations Records of Ahn Jung-Geun
Korea Journal
2015 .06
-
안중근 가문의 유방백세와 망각지대
역사비평
2010 .02
-
러시아에서의 안중근의 항일독립운동에 대한 재해석
한국독립운동사연구
2009 .12
-
안중근의거와 대동공보사의 관계에 대한 재검토
한국사연구
2010 .09
-
안중근 의거에 대한 국외 한인사회의 인식과 반응
한국독립운동사연구
2007 .06
-
안중근 의거에 대한 미국 언론의 반응
한국독립운동사연구
2020 .05
-
일본정부의 安重根 재판 개입과 그 불법성
사학연구
2009 .12
-
안중근의 전쟁과 평화, 죽임과 죽음
역사와현실
2010 .03
-
안중근 의거에 대한 일본인의 인식- 1909년부터 1910년까지 아사히신문(朝日新聞)을 중심으로 -
일어일문학연구
2017 .01
-
한일 간의 流動하는 국민적 기억
한일관계사연구
2007 .04
-
대한제국 언론매체의 정치기획과 안중근
아시아문화연구
2013 .12
-
이강의 독립운동과 안중근의거
한국인물사연구
2009 .03
-
안중근의 군인관의 형성과 전개
군사연구
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-018887286